Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Railways (West Scottish Group) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 11th April.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Leeds and Bradford Extension) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 27th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

QUEEN'S ROYAL WEST SURREY REGIMENT (PRIVATE LESLIE DILLON).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private Leslie Dillon, No. 32,176, late of Labour Battalion, the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, now residing at 31, Trewent Street, Earlsfield, has been informed that his pension, of which he has been in receipt since demobilisation, will cease in May of this year; that while in service in Salonika he contracted malarial fever and neurasthenia; that on his return to England he was sent to the Neurological Hospital, Church Lane, Tooting, where he remained for 11 months; that he is unfit for employment because of his neurasthenia and debility; and will he take steps to have the case inquired into?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am having inquiries made into this case, and as soon as I have
received a full report I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

PENSION ALLOWANCES (WIVES).

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a new regulation has been issued in the case of wives not legally separated but living apart from their husbands, that pension allowances are not now payable unless a maintenance order or deed of separation has been obtained; whether he is aware that the only remedy is an action for aliment against the husband, involving outlay which in many cases the wife cannot afford; and whether, in view of the hardship that this involves in the present withdrawal of allowance, he will give instructions that such allowances shall be continued where the circumstances have been investigated by the local war pensions committee and where the allowances have hitherto been paid?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The purpose of the grant of an allowance for a wife is to enable the pensioner to support her in his own home. If she is separated from him and has no legal claim upon him for maintenance, no allowance would be payable. I have, however, discretionary power to grant an allowance where it is clear that the husband is liable for the wife's maintenance under a maintenance order or deed of separation. I regret I am unable to make payment in any other circumstances.

Mr. GRAHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very hard that allowances should be withdrawn pending the obtaining of these maintenance orders and will he not give the local War Pensions Committee powers to continue the allowances until some arrangement is made?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Unfortunately, although cases of hardship may arise, I think my hon. Friend will agree that I cannot help matters. In cases of this kind I must have something definite, either a maintenance order or something to go upon. Perhaps my hon. Friend will discuss the matter with me.

Mr. GRAHAM: I will.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman describe the position in respect of a wife who is living apart from her husband, who does not know
his address, and who is informed by the pension authorities that unless she sues him for maintenance they will stop her allowance?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

DISABILITY (AGGRAVATION).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a large number of ex-service men whose disabilities have been previously marked as caused by their service are now having these altered to aggravated by service; and whether he is aware that in some cases the next step has been that aggravation has passed away and the men are refused a pension?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the Central Division of Bristol on the 23rd February, and of which I am sending him a copy.

"LIGHT WORK."

Mr. MACLEAN: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a large number of ex-service men entitled to pensions are having their papers marked spare-time treatment, fit for light work; whether he is prepared to give a definition of what constitutes light work, so that a clear understanding can be arrived at; and whether, having marked the papers fit for light work, the Ministry is prepared to intimate to the ex-service men where such light work can be obtained?

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is contrary to the specific instructions of my Department for medical officers to certify men as fit for light work. If my hon. Friend knows of any case in which this has been done, I shall be glad if he will let me have particulars.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that against his own instructions, these papers are being marked in a very general manner throughout the whole of Glasgow?

Mr. MACPHERSON: No, I am not.

Mr. MACLEAN: I can send him quite a number of cases.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend or any other Member of the House will send me cases of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AEROPLANE TANK TESTS.

Mr. RAPER: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to investigate or develop the aeroplane tank which was submitted to the Royal Air Force authorities too late to take part in the recent aeroplane tank competition at Farnborough, but which proved itself under tests similar to those to which the competition tanks were submitted to be both crash-proof and fire-proof?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The tank, although delivered too late, was submitted to tests, but was not considered as satisfactory as a good many of the others sent in, and it is not proposed to develop the design.

Mr. RAPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some further opportunity of stating the objections to this tank, and did it not fulfil the conditions to which I refer in my question?

Captain GUEST: It is quite clear it did not fulfil the conditions necessary to obtain first place in the competition. If my hon. Friend puts down a further question on the subject I shall endeavour to secure more information for him.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL AVIATION (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. GILBERT: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his Department pay or allow any subsidies to any commercial aviation companies; if so, will he state to how many of such companies they are paid, what the amounts are, and if any and what conditions are imposed as a condition of payment; if any time limit is imposed; and, if so, for how long?

Captain GUEST: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The answer to the first two parts of the question is as follows:—

Two companies are at present subsidised on the London-Paris route. The amount and conditions of this subsidy are set forth in Command Paper 1521, published in October last. The terms and agreements therein set forth have been extended to 31st March.

From the 1st April three companies will be subsidised on this route under new conditions. Briefly summarised, these conditions are as follows:?—

(1) A subsidy of 25 per cent. on gross takings.
(2) Provision of not more than half the operating fleet by the Air Ministry on a hire purchase basis.
(3) An additional grant during the period ending 28th February, 1923, of £3 per passenger and 3d. per 1b. of goods carried.
(4) A reduction in the subsidy by the amount of any profit over 15 per cent.
(5) In order to qualify for the subsidy, the firm, its personnel and aircraft, must be British, a specified regularity of service must be maintained, and fully detailed accounts must be kept for the information of the Air Ministry.

In regard to the third and fourth parts of this question, the arrangements in respect of the 25 per cent. subsidy and the provision of machines on the hire purchase basis hold good until 31st March, 1924. The provision of any additional grant under paragraph (3) above after 28th February, 1923, will be a matter for consideration prior to that date. I would add that tenders are now under consideration for the operation of the London-Brussels route by one company with the assistance of a subsidy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

ASYLUM PATIENTS.

Captain LOSEBY: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men confined in lunatic asylums on 1st January, 1921, 1st October, 1921, and at the present date?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir A. Mond): The numbers of ex-service men classified as "service" patients by the authority of of the Ministry of Pensions in county
and borough mental hospitals in England and Wales were as follows:


On 1st January, 1921
…
4,673


On 1st January, 1922
…
4,991*


* Latest information available.


No information is available as to the numbers on the 1st October last. In addition a small number of ex-service men are detained whose classification as "service" patients the Ministry of Pensions have declined to authorise.

Captain LOSEBY: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men confined in pauper lunatic asylums in which the ex-service men are not segregated?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend is not able to give the figures which are asked for. In some mental hospitals which contain large numbers of ex-service men some segregation is carried out, but generally speaking it is in the interest of the patients that they should be classified according to mental state and conduct.

Captain LOSEBY: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give a list of the lunatic asylums in which ex-service men are detained, and the number in each asylum?

Major BARNSTON: The particulars for which the hon. and gallant Member asks are too long to be given in an oral reply and, with permission, my right hon. Friend proposes to have the list circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:


"Service" Patients—1st January, 1922.


Name of Asylum.


No. of "Service" Patients.


Bods, Herts and Hunts
…
…
29


Berks
…
…
46


Brecon
…
…
26


Bucks
…
…
40


Cambridge
…
…
20


Carmarthen
…
…
22


Chester: Chester
…
…
79


Parkside
…
…
61


Cornwall
…
…
40


Cumberland
…
…
35


Denbigh
…
…
59


Derby Co
…
…
33


Devon
…
…
41


Dorset
…
…
28


Durham
…
…
104

Name of Asylum.

No. of "Service" Patients.


Essex: Brentwood
…
82


Severalls
…
53


Glamorgan
…
99


Gloucester
…
44


Hants: Knowle
…
57


Park Prewett
…
3


Hereford
…
18


Herts
…
43


Kent: Banning Heath
…
75


Chartham
…
37


Lancaster: Lancaster
…
107


Rainhill
…
204


Prestwich
…
292


Whittingham
…
134


Winwick
…
—


Leics and Rutland
…
23


Lincoln: Bracebridge
…
41


Kesteven
…
14


London: Banstead
…
150


Bexley
…
85


Cane Hill
…
110


Claybury
…
172


Colney Hatch
…
85


Hanwell
…
98


Horton
…
—


Long Grove
…
165


Middlesex: Wandsworth
…
82


Napsbury
…
50


Monmouth
…
41


Norfolk
…
53


Northampton
…
47


Northumberland
…
29


Nottingham Co
…
25


Salop
…
34


Somerset Wells
…
17


Cotford
…
31


Staffs: Stafford
…
53


Burntwood
…
67


Cheddleton
…
54


Suffolk
…
37


Surrey: Brook wood
…
28


Netherne
…
75


Sussex: East
…
49


West
…
21


Warwick
…
54


Wight, Isle of
…
8


Wilts
…
33


Worcester, Powick
…
41


Barnsley H.
…
20


York, N.R.
…
13


York, W. R.: Wakefield
…
135


Wadsley
…
35


Menston
…
127


Storthes Hall
…
72


York, E.K.
…
14

Name of Asylum

No. of "Service" Patients.


Birmingham: Winson Green
…
54


Rubery Hill
…
72


Brighton
…
27


Bristol
…
36


Canterbury
…
6


Cardiff
…
45


Croydon
…
19


Derby
…
23


Exeter
…
14


Gateshead
…
18


Hull
…
32


Ipswich
…
13


Leicester
…
39


London, City of
…
18


Middlesbrough
…
42


Newcastle-on-Tyne
…
43


Newport
…
12


Norwich
…
28


Nottingham
…
47


Plymouth
…
37


Portsmouth
…
42


Sunderland
…
37


West Ham
…
61


York
…
21


Total
…
4,985

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Major COHEN: 85.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of tradesmen who are entitled to call themselves Royal Warrant holders; and what proportion of that number are on the King's Roll?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The number of holders of the Royal Warrant in Great Britain is 1,182, of whom 559 are on the King's National Roll. The balance includes, no doubt, a number of firms which are either small or highly specialised. But a considerable number might reasonably be expected to enrol. I am taking further steps to bring the matter to the notice of those Royal Warrant holders who have not yet enrolled, and might reasonably be expected to do so.

Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing a further list of county, city, borough, and district councils who are not qualified for the King's Roll?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We give returns periodically in the Labour Gazette which
will probably help my hon. and gallant Friend, but it would be a very formidable list to give the names of all the councils that are not on the list. It would be a very considerable list, but I will consider the point and see whether we can afford to do it.

Viscount CURZON: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given include Government Departments?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Government Departments are not Royal Warrant holders in this sense.

APPOINTMENTS BOARD.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 86.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Colonel Summers, D.S.O., D.S.C., and Commander Pethick, officers with records of distinguished combatant service, have been dismissed from the directorate of the Appointments Board of the Ministry of Labour, after four years of highly successful service in conjunction with a number of voluntary assistants; whether these two distinguished officers have been replaced by two high officials of the Civil Liabilities Department of the headquarters of the Ministry at higher salaries; will he say why this is so; and whether he is aware that the majority of voluntary workers have threatened to resign in consequence unless the aforementioned two officers are reinstated immediately?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. and gallant Friend would appear to have been misinformed in this matter. Commander Pethiek is still being retained in the Appointments Branch of the Ministry of Labour, but in pursuance of the general policy of securing economy of staff the services of Colonel Summers are being terminated as from the 30th April. It is not a fact, however, that the place of this officer will be taken by another official. On the contrary, his post is definitely to be retrenched, and the duties which he has performed will, as from the 1st May, be shared between other officers of the Appointments Branch in addition to their existing duties. The other points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend do not accordingly arise.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that his
policy is to reduce expenditure, why has he now two permanent secretaries at £3,000 a year instead of one at £1,500?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is that I have not.

POST OFFICE (CLERICAL STAFF).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 95.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the available qualified men on the March, 1921, Post Office Supplementary Clerk Selection Board List awaiting appointments, he will refrain from holding further examinations for clerical appointments until those ex-service men are employed on the clerical staff of his Department?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am having enquiry made, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ARMS (RESTORATION).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 8.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can now announce the arrangements that have been made for restoring the arms and ammunition taken from loyal subjects during the past two or three years by order of His Majesty's Government for safe custody by the Government; whether he can give an assurance that these arms and ammunition will be handed over to their lawful owners by officials of His Majesty's Government without passing through other hands; and whether compensation will be made to the owners for any of this property which has been stolen or lost while in the custody of the Government?

Major BARNSTON (for Sir Hamar Greenwood): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend say when a statement will be made on this matter, which is urgent as regards many men in Ireland, who want their guns to save their crops?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: On a point of Order. There are two Ministers responsible for Ireland. Ireland is in a very dangerous state, and they should be
here to answer questions, so that those questions may, if necessary, be supplemented.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is aware that very important matters are now being discussed regarding Ireland, and no doubt these discussions require the attendance of the Ministers in question.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I was asked to adjourn this question 10 days ago, and I did so, on the distinct understanding that I would get a reply to-day. Can my hon. Friend say when I shall receive an answer?

Major BARNSTON: I will make representations to my right hon. Friend, but I really cannot say myself when the answer will be available.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary what provision was made in

Pensions awarded to Widows and Children.


Rank.
Normal Pension.
Special Pension awarded.
Normal Children's Allowance.
Special allowance awarded for children.




£
£




1 District Inspector
…
30
100
4 at £10
4 at £25


1 Head Constable
…
15
50
4 at £2 10s.
5 at £6 5s.


1 Sergeant
…
15
50
1 at £2 10s.
1 at £6 5s.


1 Sergeant
…
15
50
2 at £2 10s.
2 at £6 5s.

pensions awarded to men injured.


Rank.

Normal Pension.


Special Pension awarded.


1 Constable
…
£25


£50


1 Constable
…
£35


£50


1 Constable
…
£26
8s.

£50


1 Sergeant
…
£61
12s.
4d.
£72

In addition, amounts ranging from £15 to £50 were paid to the dependants of seven unmarried men killed, and they were also granted sums of from £10to £50 from a specially raised—the Irish police and Constabulary Recognition Fund. From this special fund amounts of war stock varying from £170 to £200 were granted to the widows of the killed, and a killed, and a grant of £140 was made

the case of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were killed and wounded in the Irish rebellion of 1918: what gratuities and pensions were paid to them and to their dependants; whether he will state what were the normal pensions to which they were entitled under Statute and what were the special pensions awarded; and whether the pensions so awarded are liable to be increased under the Pensions Increase Act, 1920?

Major BARNSTON: With my hon. and learned Friend's permission, the Chief Secretary will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reply to this question, which is rather lengthy, and contains a number of figures.

The following is the statement referred to:

The pensions and allowances awarded in the cases of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary killed and wounded in the rebellion of 1916, as compared with the normal pensions to which they were entitled, are as follows:

to each of the injured men. Under the Pensions Increase Act the men pensioned have received increases of approximately £10 per annum.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: 11.
asked the Chief Secretary what is the amount now standing to the credit of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund; and how it is proposed to deal with this fund, in view of the demobilisation of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Major BARNSTON: As regards the assets of the Constabulary Force Fund, my right hon. Friend refers the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which he gave to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the 7th March. The bulk of the persons whose dependants
may be entitled to benefit from the benefits branch of this fund are pensioners already, and the disbandment of the force does not affect the purpose of this branch of the fund, which is to benefit dependants on the death of subscribers. No new subscribers have been admitted since 1883, and it is proposed to let the fund continue until there are no longer any subscribers left so that the widows and orphans of deceased members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were subscribers to that fund should be able to benefit.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will my hon. Friend represent to the Chief Secretary that there are a number of survivors of the men who subscribed up to 1883; that they are now being demobilised with something like 40 years' service and that they are asking for a portion of this money to enable them to leave the country, from which they are being hounded, at the present time?

Major BARNSTON: I certainly will do so.

GENERAL PRISONS BOARD (CLBRK).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 10.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Mr. W. Henry, clerk in the office of the General Prisons Board, Dublin Castle, has been employed for the past seven years on Treasury class duties; will he say why he has been refused Treasury class treatment; and, seeing that his present duty is classed as executive, why has he been refused the executive grade?

Major BARNSTON: This officer's rank is that of clerk in the Habitual Criminals Registry of the General Prisons Board. His scale of pay is equivalent to that of the junior clerical class, but owing to a decrease in the work of the Habitual Criminals Registry, he has been employed for several months on work in another branch of the office which is usually performed by an officer of the executive grade. It is not considered that this purely temporary arrangement would justify the creation of an additional executive post, and there is at present no vacancy in the executive establishment of the Department which would provide an opportunity of considering his qualifications for promotion.

MR. MICHAEL COLLINS.

Mr. ERSKINE: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Mr. Michael Collins at Cork on the 12th March, 1922, as reported in the Press of 13th March, 1922, to the effect that he and his colleagues had made Ireland too uncomfortable for the British, that there were too many ambushed positions in Ireland, and that there ware too many gloomy street corners in Cork and Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that this statement is adverse both in the letter and the spirit to the undertaking given by him and his co-signatories to the Treaty, he will refrain from placing any confidence in this gentleman in future?

Major BARNSTON: Yes, Sir, I have seen the statement quoted by the hon. Member, which clearly refers to the period prior to 11th July last. I do not, therefore, understand the suggestion in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.

Colonel GRETTON: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the perpetrators of the murders of the police in St. Bride's Home, Galway, or the muderer of Sergeant Gloster in Cork, or the robbers who raided Ennistymon Rectory and stole a considerable amount of property therefrom, or the committers of many similar illegalities and crimes in Ireland, have been arrested and proceeded against by the administration of the Irish Free State?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend regrets to state that no arrests have yet been made in connection with the Galway murders of the 15th instant, or the more recent murder of ex-Sergeant Gloster. In the case of the raid on Kilmanaheen Rectory, Ennistymon, the investigations made have resulted in the recovery of the stolen property to the extent of £111, but none of the culprits has yet been arrested. The number of arrests for various crimes made under the authority of the Provisional Government is considerable. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give the exact numbers; but as the House is aware two men are being tried for the recent murder of Mr. Max Green in Dublin, and four
men are in custody in connection with the murders of Lieutenant Meade and Sergeant Cunliffe.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether representations have been made to the Provisional Government with reference to the murder of Sergeant Gloster and with what results?

Major BARNSTON: I cannot say.

Viscount WOLMER: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many murders of, and cases of assault on, private individuals by armed men have occurred in Southern Ireland since the signing of the Treaty; how many cases of compulsory levies of money and private property by armed men have occurred in Southern Ireland during the same period; what is the total amount of money, and private property, respectively, taken under such compulsory levies; in how many cases have the cattle of individuals, which had been driven off, been returned; in how many cases have the lands and houses of private individuals been confiscated by armed men in Southern Ireland during the same period; and in how many cases have the houses and property of individuals been entered upon by armed men in the same area and during the same period in order to compel the owners thereof to give in to illegal demands?

Major BARNSTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the reply given yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Kensington South.

Viscount CURZON: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the special constables captured at Clones have yet been released; if the murderers of Lieutenant Gronochio, Captain Meade, and Sergeant Cunliffe have been apprehended: if not, whether any steps are now being taken to catch the assassins: and whether any joint inquiry into these assassinations is to be held?

Major BARNSTON: The special constables captured at Clones on the 11th ultimo have not yet been released. No arrests have yet been made in connection with the murder of Lieutenant Gronochio, and the question of holding a joint inquiry into this case is still under
consideration. My right hon. Friend understands that four persons have been arrested by the forces of the Provisional Government on suspicion of complicity in the murder of Lieutenant Meade and Sergeant Cunliffe.

Viscount CURZON: How much longer does the hon. and gallant Gentleman expect we shall have to wait before a decision is come to as to whether or not a joint inquiry is to be held into these deaths?

Major BARNSTON: I will convey that query to my right hon. Friend.

Colonel GRETTON: Is it known where the special constables are confined, and when they will be released?

Major BARNSTON: I cannot answer that.

Colonel GRETTON: (by Private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information which he can give to the House as to the circumstances of the murder of two men at Crossmaglen, South Armagh, the attack upon the Belcoo Police Barracks, and the kidnapping of 17 policemen; if he knows what has become of these men; and whether any arrests have been made?

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what took place yesterday at Belcoo, Crossmaglen, Adavoyle, Ballycastle, in Cork, at Drog-heda, and on the Enniskillen-Sligo railway at Renmore; whether four British officers in a motor car were fired upon at a point close to Dublin from an ex-military lorry; and whether a motor car belonging to and driven by General Sir H. S. Jeudwine was stolen close to Naas?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who is engaged in the Irish Conference, I have been asked to answer these two questions. On receipt of the questions they were telegraphed to Ireland for reply, and I will read to the House the whole of the reply as received up to the present:
With the exception of the attack near Dublin on the four British officers, none of whom were injured, and the seizure of General Jeudwine's car, both of which are confirmed by the British military authorities in Dublin, I have not yet received any
official reports of these outrages, and I have no information except what has appeared in the Press. The military authorities have no evidence that the attack on the four British officers was made from an ex-military lorry.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was the sender of the telegram which he has just read?

H. GREENWOOD: This comes an official in Dublin Castle, who is in communication with the military authorities.

Lord R. CECIL: A British official?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly, an official of His Majesty's Government, who is a civil servant paid by a Vote of this House. I would remind the House of the increasing difficulty of getting specific information on a given outrage from any part of Ireland. I regret that profoundly, as I am sure the House will. It makes it very difficult for my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary or myself to give more detailed answers to Private Notice questions.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Has not Dublin Castle been taken over by the Provisional Government, and what is a British official doing there?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Until the Bill which I hope will be before the House at the earliest date becomes an Act, certain officials of His Majesty's Government are still functioning in Ireland.

Viscount CURZON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has no information with regard to the outrages on officers which I cited, and which have taken place on or adjacent to the border?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have read to the House all the information that I have.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, CORK (PENSIONS).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to say whether the Provisional Government accept the responsibility for the payment of the pensions of the ex-professor pensioners of Queen's College, Cork, now University College, Cork; and whether the British Government will guarantee the payment of those pensions?

Major BARNSTON: Any financial responsibility of His Majesty's Government
in respect of the payment of the will pass under the Free State (Agreement) Bill to the Provisional Government, and to the extent of that responsibility the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 19th December last, in respect of other classes of pensioners, will apply.

REPUBLICAN ARMY CONVENTION.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Convention of the Irish Republican Army was held at the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 26th March, 1922, at which were present 220 delegates, representing 49 brigades, four members of the general headquarters, officers from eight of the divisional staff, and the staffs of three of the four independent brigades, at which resolutions were unanimously passed reaffirming its allegiance to the Irish Republic, under an executive appointed by the Convention, and declaring that the Army shall be under the supreme control of such executive, which shall draft a constitution for submission to a subsequent Convention; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to allow such an army to exist; if not, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent it; and whether he can state how many armed men are comprised in such an army?

Major BARNSTON: The attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to a newspaper report of this Convention. He has no precise information as to the number of the adherents of this attempt to set up a military dictatorship, but they certainly do not amount to more than a relatively small minority of the people, and he is unable to believe that they will succeed in bringing about a situation which would call for the intervention of the British Government, which, in any event, would be guided by the wishes and requests of the responsible Government.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Having regard to the commandeering of motor traffic in the last few days, will he convey to the Minister my inquiry, and suggest that his attention having been called to the matter, he should make further inquiries or it will be too late?

Major BARNSTON: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LUGGAGE CONFISCATION (GERMANY).

Mr. CAREW: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can take any steps to expedite the payment by the German authorities of substantiated claims of those persons whose luggage was confiscated by the Germans at the outbreak of the war and afterwards sold by them; and can he say why claim P.R.I. 1,665, registration No. 77, submitted in October, 1914, has not yet been satisfied?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I have been asked to reply. Every effort is being made by His Majesty's Government to expedite the settlement of claims It is of course always open to claimants to refer their claims to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication. Claim P.R.I. 1,665, was forwarded to Germany with the first batch of claims. The German authorities made a request for production of the luggage voucher, with which the claimant was unable to comply, but evidence has been since supplied by her which should facilitate the identification of the luggage in question. With regard to the payment of claims for compensation, I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle North on the 13th instant.

Mr. CAREW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the registration number was forwarded to the clearing office, and was lost by them; and how long will the German Government be allowed to flout claims of this sort?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no knowledge as to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. With regard to the second part we are doing all we can on this side.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

BULGAKIA.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 54 of the Treaty of Neuilly, guaranteeing equal rights and protection to Bulgarian minorities, has been ignored in Greek and Serbian Macedonian territory; and why the stipulations of Article 54 have
not been placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations, as provided by Article 57?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Noble Lord has mistaken the object of Article 54 of the Treaty of Neuilly, which is to protect persons of alien race, religion or language resident in Bulgaria. The protection of persons of alien race, religion or language resident in Serbia and Greece is secured by special Treaties with those two countries. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being made in the Peace Treaty with the Turks to give effect to Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly, which guarantees to Bulgaria an access to the Ægean Sea; and whether it is the non-fulfilment of Article 48 that is paralysing Bulgarian trade, thus injuring also the trade of Great Britain?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Article 48 of the Treaty of Neuilly is entirely independent of any Peace Treaty with the Turks. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are the Government going to take any steps to see that the Treaty of Neuilly is carried out?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will send my Noble Friend a copy of the so-called Thracian Treaty, which will give him the full information which His Majesty's Government possess.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: Can the hon. Gentleman say where the Bulgarians are to have an outlet to the sea?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is proposed that the Bulgarians shall have access to the sea at Dedeagatch.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What additional rights are they to get in order to have that access to the Ægean?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am told that the Thracian Treaty has not yet been ratified, but I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of it.

Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman also send me one?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Paris Conference on the Near East took into consideration the Treaty of the Trianon and the rights of the Bulgarian people in East Thrace; and, if so, why the reported decision took no account of Bulgaria or of Bulgarian access to the Ægean?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not know what are the Bulgarian interests in Eastern Thrace to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The question of Bulgarian access to the Ægean was not raised in the recent Conference, which was concerned with the revision of the Treaty of Sèvres.

Captain ELLIOT: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether any modification of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria is contemplated, in consideration of the modification of her situation by the alterations suggested by the Paris Conference on the Treaty of Sèvres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a definite pledge was given in the Treaty of Neuilly that Bulgaria should have access to the Ægean Sea, he is aware that Bulgaria has no access to that sea and that in consequence British commerce suffers by the additional freightage it has to pay; and if he will see that this fact is taken into account in any territorial readjustment in the Near East?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would remind the hon. Member of the reply returned to him on 6th March, and of that given to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel W. Guinness) on 22nd February last, to which there is nothing that I can at present usefully add.

GERMAN SEPARATION.

Mr. L. MALONE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal put for ward for the settlement of the German reparations problem by the acceptance of Germany of responsibility for inter-Allied debts was made with the concurrence, of the Allied Governments; if not, have these proposals been submitted to
them, and have any answers been received; and has the attitude of the German Government been ascertained?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Home): The hon. Member is presumably referring to a scheme mentioned by me at the recent Conference of Allied Ministers at Paris. This scheme was not put forward as a definite proposal, but as a suggestion for consideration, together with other schemes. Accordingly, the questions asked do not arise.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask whether the British Government has approved, as one of the terms, of the levy on capital in Germany, in view of the fact that they ruled out a levy on capital in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

Mr. KILEY: 92.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government have decided to forego the collection of 26 per cent. German Reparation Duty on fresh fish; and, if so, are they also prepared to withdraw the collection of the same duty on green and other perishable fruits and vegetables?

Mr. McCURDY (for Sir R. Home): Fresh fish first consigned from Germany to the United Kingdom, in common with other goods so consigned, is liable to the Separation levy, and there is no intention of excluding it. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise. Fish caught outside German territorial waters by German trawlers and brought direct to United Kingdom ports is not liable to the levy.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question—why this fish which is dumped by German trawlers is not charged this duty, seeing that it is prejudicing the English trawling industry? Will it be made liable to this duty?

Mr. McCURDY: That supplementary question will be brought to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

COAL DELIVERIES (FRANCE).

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: (by Private. Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to
the published statement that an attempt was made by the. Prime Minister at Spa in July, 1920, to squeeze France into acceptance of a British proposal that the price of coal due from Germany to France under the Versailles Treaty as compensation for the wrecking of French mines during the War should be made equivalent to the British export price or, in other words, that France, instead of paying for the coal at approximately £2 per ton, should pay for it at £6 per ton; that the Prime Minister threatened M. Millerand, then French Prime Minister, that he would declare the entente with France at an end and arraign her in the House of Commons unless M. Millerand would consent to raise the Treaty price of German coal to the level of the British export price, and that, by this arrangement, the British Treasury hoped to retain at the expense of France the Excess Profits Duty on British export coal, then being sold at £6 per ton, and whether these statements are in accordance with the facts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have seen the statements referred to. They are a complete travesty of the facts of the case, which are as follows: In July, 1920, Germany had failed to comply with the demands of the Reparation Commission for the delivery of coal to France, Belgium and Italy. The Supreme Council summoned German coal experts to Spa, who represented that the insufficient quantity of food available for German miners was one of the chief obstacles to compliance with the demands of the Reparation Commission. The Allied coal experts unanimously agreed that this statement was well founded. The Supreme Council adopted a proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, based on a suggestion by the Belgian Prime Minister, that the Allies should advance to Germany for the purchase of foodstuffs for miners amounts equal to the difference between the prices actually paid for coal to be delivered by Germany after the 1st August, 1920 (with the addition of 5 gold marks per ton in order to secure that the coal should be sorted), and the f.o.b. export price in England or Germany for like coal, whichever were the lower, for a period of six months. The result of this decision was that during the six months in question
the demands of the Reparation Commission were almost completely carried out and the critical coal position in France was thereby relieved. So far from this arrangement being of any profit to the British Treasury, this country agreed to make 24 per cent. of the advance to Germany under this arrangement, although none of the coal was received by this country, and it will be recollected that the House voted £5,500,000 for this purpose.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Will my right hon. Friend state whether the Government have or have not any machinery at their command by which pernicious statements like this, which seriously damage the relations between this country and our great neighbour across the water, can be dealt with?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend himself has provided the best machinery. I know no better machinery than a statement made on the Floor of this House.

Mr. HOGGE: How can my right hon. Friend justify giving the House this information, which is necessary for the discussion on Monday, after having refused the other information which is equally necessary?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the action of the Mexican Government in retaining the property of the Mexican Southern Railway Company, Limited, while withholding the compensation payable under their own railway law; whether he has any official information as to the ownership of this railway; whether he can state if the Mexican Government are themselves the proprietors of the railway; and, if so, whether he will state the percentage of the shares held by the Mexican Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have been informed by the company that the issued capital, consisting of debenture stock and ordinary stock, is held to the extent of
99 per cent. by British subjects, the ownership of the railway thus clearly remaining with the British shareholders.

Mr. BALFOUR: In view of the fact that the Mexican Government circulated the statement that the shares of this railway company are held to the extent of 53 per cent. by the Mexican Government, will the hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to convey information to that Government that the railway is owned entirely by British shareholders?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the answer I have given shows that.

BRITISH TRADE.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that strong attempts are now being made in the United States of America to capture the bulk of the import trade of Mexico; that such attempts are well organised and supported by American chambers of commerce; if so, whether any efforts are being made to compete by British traders; and whether British chambers of commerce are supporting or would support an attempt to develop a trade with Mexico?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that efforts are being made by traders in the U.S.A. to promote their trade with Mexico, for which they enjoy geographical advantages, but as I explained in replying to a similar question by the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the 27th March, British trade with Mexico has also been not unsatisfactorily maintained. British chambers of commerce are in close contact with my Department and are ready in this as in other markets to render all assistance within their power.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is my hon. Friend in a position to state whether or not his Department is in touch with the Foreign Office in this matter, and is he submitting to them any information about the importance of trading relations between this country and Mexico?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Most certainly. My Department is a joint Department of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade and is in daily constant touch, of course, with the Foreign Office on all these subjects.

Oral Answers to Questions — AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Major BARNETT: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to safeguard the important British interests in Azerbaijan and Georgia, in view of the fact that these Soviet Republics, though under Soviet Russian control, will not be represented at the Genoa Conference?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As was pointed out in a reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 22nd March, the Transcaucasian Republics have declined to accept a British representative. I am unable at present to state what effective steps may eventually be possible to safeguard British interests in the Caucasus.

Major BARNETT: Does that mean that Soviet Russia can confiscate any British property there?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will the hon. Gentleman say that before the Russian Soviet Government is recognised we shall receive distinct understandings that all British property is to be returned?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is one of the subjects to be discussed at Genoa.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORK (EXPORT DUTY, SPAIN).

Mr. WALLACE: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the imposition of an Export Duty by the Spanish Government of 25 pesetas per ton on cork in sheets or slabs, and of 5 pesetas per ton on cork waste or shavings: whether he is aware of the effect this will have on the cost of finished goods made from these raw materials; and whether he has made any representations to the Spanish Government on the subject?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware of the present rates of duty, which are correctly quoted in the question. I have received no representations from traders in regard to these duties, and as at present advised I am not proposing to take any action.

Mr. WALLACE: If the right hon. Gentleman does receive any representations, will he take any action in the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am always prepared to give my best attention to any representations that are made to me, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the duty on the sheets of cork has been reduced by one-half compared with what it was, whereas the present Spanish tariff shows a general increase.

Mr. WALLACE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the export duty is an innovation?

Mr. BALDWIN: If I am correctly informed, the export duty before this 25 pesetas was put on stood at 50 pesetas.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATES (NON-PAYMENT).

Mr. DOYLE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of persons who were committed to prison during the closing months of 1921 for non-payment of rates for the Metropolis, for the provinces, and for Scotland; how many of these were females; and how many of such prisoners paid up such arrears after being arrested?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): During the last three months of 1921, 178 persons were received into prison for non-payment of metropolitan rates, and 97 for non-payment of provincial rates; 14 of the metropolitan and six of the provincial cases were females; 58 out of all these were discharged from prison on payment of the whole or part of the arrears. I am told there wore no such cases in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENOA CONFERENCE.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE AND M. POINCARÉ.

Mr. ASQUITH: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether an agreement was reached at the Boulogne Conference, or otherwise, between the Prime Minister and M. Poincaré as to the agenda of the Genoa Conference; if so, whether, and to what extent, this agreement limits the subjects to be discussed at that Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Among the subjects discussed at Boulogne by M. Poincaré and the Prime Minister was the Genoa Conference, and the two Prime Ministers exchanged ideas upon the scope
and conduct of the Conference. As I stated yesterday, I cannot deal adequately with this matter within the limits of an answer at Question time, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consent to await the Prime Minister's speech on Monday, in which he proposes to deal fully with this point among others. I have drawn his particular attention to my right hon. Friends inquiry.

Mr. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think, as Leader of the House, that it is disrespectful to the House of Commons when the Government themselves have invited a Debate, that on matters so vital to the due consideration in that Debate as an agreement reached or alleged to have been reached between the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France, we should be dependent until the Debate is initiated by the Prime Minister on second-hand sources of information, and should not be told what we ought to be told, i.e., what was actually arrived at?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that neither my right hon. Friend nor the House will think I would be guilty of any discourtesy, but my right hon. Friend has himself illustrated the difficulty of dealing with this matter by questions and answers. His question has become a speech, and his speech a denunciation. It is not for want of respect to the House, but out of regard to the public interest, that I must, speaking with the responsibility of a Minister, ask the House to allow us to defer our explanations on this matter until the Debate, in which they can be given fully and fairly.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that the reason the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question is that he does not know the answer?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask if, in view of the fact that the House is to know nothing about this matter until Monday, the right hon. Gentleman will not reconsider his decision not to give more than one day for the Debate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot, in the state of public business, allot more than one day to it. It is unusual for the House to seek to anticipate a Debate for which a day is allotted by a series of questions on the very subject of the Debate.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: As the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give a full day for the discussion of this important question, will he be prepared to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on this subject, which is more vitally important than many other questions for the purposes of which he has made such a Motion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am prepared to give a full day, and if it be desired by any of the parties in the House that the Eleven o'Clock Rule should be suspended, I shall be willing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Colonel GRETTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider laying Papers which may be available to Members on Monday morning, so that, at any rate, we may have a little time to consider the points that will be raised?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Papers which the Government think necessary for the discussion are already laid.

Lord R. CECIL: If there was an agreement reached at Boulogne—I do not know whether there was—does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that we ought to have in our possession the text of that agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My Noble Friend is trying to persuade me to do what I have already said that, speaking with the responsibility of a Minister, I do not think it is in the public interest that I should do. I must respectfully decline to answer my Noble Friend's question.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state exactly how the staff of the British Empire Delegation at Genoa will be composed; and whether he can give any estimate of the cost involved?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Figures for the staffs of the Government Departments concerned were, given in my answer to the question put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore).

The following are the figures for the Delegations from the Dominions:

Australia.—One Delegate, Staff of four persons.
Canada.—Two Delegates, Staff of four persons.
South Africa.—One Delegate, two Advisers, Staff of three persons.
1526
New Zealand.—Will be represented by the Imperial Government until their own Delegate arrives, and, I believe, will rely on His Majesty's Government for anything further that is required.
As regards the last part of the question it is not possible at the moment to furnish an estimate of the cost of the British Delegation to the Genoa Conference. The Delegation will be the guests of the Italian Government and, so far as is known at present, the expenses falling on the British Exchequer will consist mainly of the travelling and incidental expenses of the British Delegation, in eluding the cost of telegrams, and so forth.

Viscount CURZON: Is not the staff which was announced yesterday about twice the amount which was considered to be necessary for Washington? Does not the Foreign Office staff amount to 20, whereas there were only seven for Washington, and why do they really require such a large staff at Genoa?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the circumstances of the two Conferences are wholly different. I ought, perhaps, in giving the figures yesterday, to have broken them up into what I may call the executive and advisory staff and the ancillary staff. We are allowing three to five Ministers—three principal Ministers—24 experts, and a secretarial staff of 15 people. Then there are 51 others, who include translators, cipherers, clerks, official reporters, typists, messengers and so forth. At Washington the scope of the Conference was far less, the Conference was hold in English, and the British Delegation had the services of the ordinary staff of the British Embassy in Washington to supplement the special staff which they took with them.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot we supplement this staff also by help from our Embassy in Rome, instead of sending out all these people?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I doubt very much whether we could get any material help from our Embassy in Rome at the Conference in Genoa, but we have no desire to spend more on the staff than is necessary. At these Conferences the British Delegations have, I think by general consent, been well equipped
hitherto, and I should be sorry to see them undertake this difficult work without proper assistance.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the "cabin boy" will be included in the staff?

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: What is meant by the word "experts"? Could we have the names of these experts, and in what they are expert?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think it is necessary that I should give the House the name of every civil servant who is called upon by his Minister to go to Genoa to give such assistance as may be required.

Mr. RAPER: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether the League of Nations have been invited to take part in the forthcoming Conference at Genoa?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Council of the League have, however, authorised the Secretary-General of the League to place at the disposal of the Genoa Conference such technical information desired by the Conference as the League may be in a position to supply, and the desirability of maintaining a close co-ordination between the decisions of the Conference and the functions of the League, when these are found to come in contact, will be borne in mind.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not absolutely illogical to set up this costly and efficient organisation if it is not to be utilised when a special occasion of this sort arises?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think not. It is a little difficult to deal with these matters within the limits of an answer, but there were reasons why it appeared to the Supreme Council at Cannes that a special Conference would be more likely to lead to good results in this case than a meeting called under the auspices of the League of Nations.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that the reason previously given by the Prime Minister why it was undesirable to call a meeting under the auspices of the League of Nations does not now exist? Was not the reason given that the United States of America and the Soviet Government—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to commit the British Empire to any decision at Genoa without Parliament having the opportunity of signifying its assent or otherwise?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA DUTY.

Mr. DOYLE: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the price of tea has been considerably increased during the past few days; whether such rise is due to speculative profiteering or to a shortage of the commodity; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take not only to defend the public, but to see that such additional profits pay a corresponding share of the tea duty?

Sir R. HORNE: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that the increased price of tea is attributable to reduced production in India. With regard to the suggestion in the latter part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the taxation of profits of dealers does not come within the scope of the tea duty, which is a Customs duty levied on importation.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of reducing the Tea Duty when he introduces his Budget?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS (FEES).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that friendly societies generally view with considerable alarm the proposal of the National Economy Committee that a charge should be imposed upon them for complying with their legal obligations in the matter of making returns; and is he willing to receive a deputation representative of the societies affected before the Government comes to any decision on this matter?

Sir R. HORNE: I have received representations on the lines indicated in the
first part of the question, and hope to be able to receive a deputation representing the societies affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES (STATE GRANTS).

Mr. HURD: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in responding to the requests of the universities for State grants, he will consider the desirability of transferring to them in each university area the duty of inspecting elementary schools on a simpler and less rigid scale than is now carried out from Whitehall, thus affecting four reforms, namely, reestablishing the finances of the universities on a grant-earning basis, eliminating overlapping and over-elaboration of inspections as now carried out by the Ministry of Education and the local educational authorities, saving a considerable part of the present cost of inspections, and quickening local interest and initiative in educational progress?

Sir R. HORNE: I cannot add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 20th instant by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibilities?

Sir R. HORNE: I have considered every possibility of reduction of expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.

Sir S. ROBERTS: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the taxation and expenditure per head in 1921.

TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE PER HEAD.


—
Unit of Currency
Taxation per head.
Expenditure per head.


1921.
1913.

1921.
1913.


United Kingdom
£
20.4
3.5

24.3
3.7


France
Francs
472.4
84.5
Recoverable under Peace Treaty.
390.7
—






Other
536.3
113.3






Total
927.0
113.3


Italy
Lire
270.7
53.8

553.0
68.4


United States of America.
Dollar
32.1
6.8

33.0
7.4


Germany
Marks
1,033.2
31.3

4,216.1
52.2

for the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the United States, and Germany compared with the year 1913, in the form as given to the House on 3rd March, 1921?

Sir R. HORNE: The statement is in tabular form, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOBT.

Sir S. ROBERTS: Will my right hon. Friend bring the figures into the same denomination, say American dollars, so that Members of this House and the country may see exactly how we stand in comparison with other countries in the matter of taxation and expenditure?

Sir R. HORNE: I would remind my lion. Friend that, while I can translate all the various currencies into what they represent externally in sterling, it is impossible to give the House the precise value of their various currencies in their own country, and that, after all, is the important thing.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Will the return be translated?

Sir R. HORNE: It is a mere matter of calculation. I shall translate them into sterling at the present market rate of the various countries.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman also translate it into sterling at the pre-War rate, which is more stable?

Sir R. HORNE: That, is a calculation which can be made by hon. Gentlemen themselves, but, if desired, I can also do that.

Following is the statement referred to:

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET

Mr. WATERSON: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the introduction of the Budget?

Sir R. HORNE: It will not be introduced till after Easter, but I cannot name the precise date.

Mr. WATERSON: Will it be possible to give the date before the Easter Recess?

Sir R. HORNE: Probably it will be.

Mr. WATERSON: I will put the question down for this day week.

Sir R. HORNE: I will do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARL NELSON (PENSION).

Mr. WATERSON: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the present Earl Nelson receives a gratuity or pension; if so, which; and, if the latter, what amount per annum and the total amount he has duly received up to date?

Sir R. HORNE: Under Geo. Ill, c. 146, a statutory pension of £5,000 per annum was granted to Earl Nelson and to his heirs, etc., in succession to whom the title of Earl Nelson should descend. The present Earl succeeded to the title on 26th February, 1913, and the amount paid to him to date is £44,291 13s. 4d.

Mr. WATERSON: Is it the intention of my right hon. Friend, during the next Budget Debate, to dispense with these perpetual pensions? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS WAR STORES (SALES).

Mr. MOSLEY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum received in respect of the sale of war stores from the date of the Armistice to the 28th February, 1922; and whether the whole of that sum has been treated as revenue?

Sir R. HORNE: So far as the Disposal and Liquidation Commission is concerned, the answer is that the actual cash received and paid into the Exchequer for surplus war stores to the 28th February, 1922, is £227,000,000. This does not include sales of raw material made on trading accounts, or sales of surplus
war stores made by other Departments, e.g., horses by the War Offices, shipping by the Ministry of Shipping, etc.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question—whether the whole of that sum has been treated as revenue?

Sir R. HORNE: I said it has been paid into the Exchequer, and any money paid into the Exchequer is revenue.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR GRAVES COMMISSION.

Viscount WOLMER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost of the War Graves Commission for the forthcoming year will be, and under what heading the Estimate will be presented?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to Class VI, Vote 8, of the Civil Service Estimates, 1922–23. The total is £356,701.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER RECESS.

Major BIRCHALL: 37.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when the House will rise for Easter; and whether, in the interests of the large number of hard-working Members whose children have holidays at Easter, he will arrange to extend the Easter Recess at the expense of the Whitsuntide Adjournment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I announced yesterday, we hope to adjourn on Wednesday, 12th April, until Wednesday, 26th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMES (DETECTION).

Mr. DOYLE: 51.
asked the Home Secretary, in view of the increasing list of undiscovered murders and crimes of violence, what steps, if any, he is taking for the reorganisation of the police; and what steps have been taken to see that valuable time is not lost by the local police before the matter is reported to Scotland Yard and its help immediately called for?

Mr. SHORTT: As I have stated in reply to other questions, I am not aware there is any increase in the number of such crimes where the perpetrators escape detection. I am not contemplating any reorganisation of the police. I have re-
peatcdly drawn the attention of the local police to the importance of asking for assistance immediately, if assistance is required, and I do not think that any further steps are necessary on my part.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXI-CABS (DUTY).

Sir PARK GOFF: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the great hardship imposed upon owner-drivers of taxi-cabs who have paid £15 Motor Vehicle Duty in January, 1922, and who have had their cabs laid up for six weeks through their inability to obtain new parts from France; and whether, in such cases, he will allow a refund of the tax in proportion to the time the cab is off the road?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I have been asked to reply. My attention has not been drawn to the instance referred to in the first part of the question. I am aware that these cabs are necessarily off the streets for a few weeks in each year, and this fact was not lost sight of in fixing the duty. I am advised that the present duty on taxi-cabs does not bear more hardly on owner-drivers than the old taxation and licences. The answer to the last part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Lord H. CAVEND1SH-BENTINCK: May I ask what steps the Home Office or the hon. Gentleman's Department is taking to reduce the exorbitant charges of the London taxi-cabs?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Sir P. GOFF: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the difference in the Motor Vehicle Duty on motor-cabs in London and the provinces; and whether he will reduce the tax on London vehicles by £3 per annum, thus bringing London into line with the rest of England, namely, a flat rate of £12 per annum?

Mr. NEAL: The rates of duty were fixed by Parliament in the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920. There are valid reasons for a higher rate in London, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot recommend the suggested equalisation of the rates.

Sir P. GOFF: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, in view of the stagnation in the taxicab trade, reduce the quarterly payments of the Motor Vehicle Duty to £4 per quarter, this sum being equivalent to something over 5 per cent. interest for the privilege of paying quarterly?

Mr. NEAL: I regret that I am unable to recommend such a reduction. The issue of quarterly licences is in itself an important concession, involving a considerable increase in administrative work.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS (CONVICTIONS).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 52.
asked the Home Secretary the convictions for drunkenness in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, for each of the last three periods of six months?

Mr. SHORTT: I can give figures for England and Wales only. No figures are available for a later date than the end of the year 1921. For that year and the year 1920 the figures in six-monthly periods are as follows: January-June, 1920—England, 45,515; Wales, 2,694. July-December, 1920—England, 44,964; Wales, 2,590. January-June, 1921—England, 35,252; Wales, 1,898. July-December, 1921—England, 38,766; Wales, 1,873.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Major KELLEY: 53.
asked the Home Secretary is it the intention of the Government to acquire a number of licensed houses outside Carlisle on behalf of the State; if so, what is the number; and from what fund are they to be paid for?

Mr. SHORTT: It is not the intention of the Government to purchase any houses outside the Carlisle area.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICABS (FARES).

Major GLYN: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make any statement concerning the revision of the fares charged in the Metropolitan area by motor taxi hackney carriages?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not at present in a position to add anything to my reply of the 13th instant.

Major GLYN: Is there any likelihood of the Home Office coming to a decision before Easter?

Mr. SHORTT: Well, I rather doubt whether there is.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATURALISATION (MR. F. A. SZARVASSY).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 56.
asked the Home Secretary if he will give the date of the petition for naturalisation presented by Mr. F. A. Szarvassy, a director of the British, Foreign, and Colonial Corporation, Limited, and the date on which the application was granted; and why the naturalisation of this alien of an enemy country was proceeded with while the Home Office is still unable to consider applications presented in August, 1914, by friendly aliens of long residence in this country?

Mr. SHORTT: It is the practice, expressly recognised by the Statute, that reasons are not given by Secretaries of State for their decisions in regard to naturalisation. But I think in this case I ought to explain that there were special business reasons of benefit to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether ex-Police Constable Lowes, who was demobilised from the Army in January, 1919, and was refused reinstatement in the Metropolitan Police on medical grounds, has been reexamined by the police surgeon since 7th June, 1920; and, if so, has the result of the examination been communicated to ex-Police Constable Lowes, who had applied for reinstatement in the force?

Mr. SHORTT: Lowes has not been reexamined since the date mentioned.

Sir J. REMNANT: Did not the right hon. Gentleman make a specific promise in this House that he would see that this man was re-examined?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no recollection of it.

Sir J. REMNANT: It was!

Mr. SHORTT: If my hon. Friend will remind me of it, I will look into the matter.

Sir J. REMNANT: If the right hon. Gentleman finds, which is more than probable, that the man's private doctor disagrees with the police surgeon's finding, will the man have the right to appeal to the Medical Tribunal set up last year?

Mr. SHORTT: This case has been very carefully gone into, and I have no doubt whatever that Lowes is quite physically unfit.

Mr. GILBERT: 60.
asked the Home Secretary what are the conditions applying to the Metropolitan Police Force as regards residential quarters; are all single men in the force compelled to live at station houses and are married men allowed to live where they choose, or must they be within a mileage distance of the station they are attached to; what rent allowances are now given to men; and whether this varies according to the quarter of London the men are detailed for duty?

Mr. SHORTT: As the answer is rather long, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Married men are provided with quarters, rent free, or are given rent aid allowance in lieu. Single men live in section houses, rent free, except in special circumstances. When accommodation is available in section houses, single men are required to reside there unless there are special circumstances which render a departure from that rule desirable or permissible; for instance, exception may be made in the case of men supporting widowed mothers or other relatives. Married men are expected to reside within the limits of their station areas, or, failing proper accommodation there, within a reasonable distance beyond, but, owing to the difficulties that at present exist in obtaining any sort of housing accommodation, a number of men, who have recently joined the force and others who have been transferred to other divisions on promotion, etc., are residing at considerable distances from their stations and have to travel backwards and forwards to their homes. The rent aid
allowances for married men are the actual amounts paid in rent, rates, and taxes, subject to the following maxima:

Superintendents: £80 per annum.
Inspectors: 20s. a week.
Sergeants: 17s. a week.
Constables: 14s. 6d. a week.
These maximum limits do not vary according to the quarter of London in which the men are detailed for duty. These conditions will be altered, in some respects, as from the 1st April, as part of the measures which are being taken for the reduction of police expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD.

Sir C. YATE: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Industrial Workers of the World has been declared an illegal conspiracy in England, as it has been in America; whether his attention has been called to the speeches about fighting policemen with revolvers delivered by two Industrial Workers of the World organisers from the United States, one of whom had been deported, at the annual congress of the Communist party at St. Pancras Baths; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I have no information as to the speeches referred to in the latter part.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this case?

Mr. SHORTT: I really do not see that there is any object in my doing so; the Industrial Workers of the World have no power in this country.

Sir C. YATE: What authority has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: In respect to the Communist party, surely the right hon. Gentleman's office must have people present at some of the meetings to hear what is said and to take notes, or do you ignore them?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir, certainly not. I only said that we had no report of these two speeches.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF TOBACCO (HOURS).

Mr. C. WHITE: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused to shopkeepers and the public, especially in watering places and pleasure resorts, owing to the fact that they cannot sell or purchase cigarettes, tobacco, and other commodities after 8 p.m.; whether any extension of time can be granted in such cases where in the interests of the public it is desirable; and, if so, what steps would have to be taken to get an extension of hours granted?

Mr. SHORTT: A few representations have been received from holiday resorts in favour of an extension for these places of the evening closing hours. There is, however, no provision in the Act by which any such extension could be granted, and it would be necessary to pass amending legislation. Any such legislation would be strongly opposed.

Mr. KILEY: Surely the Home Secretary has power to act on special occasions?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN.

Major GLYN: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Aden is now under the administration of the Colonial Office; and, if not, when it is intended that this Protectorate be transferred from the charge of the India Office and Government of Bombay?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): No, Sir; the question is still under consideration. I am not in a position to say when the transfer will take place.

Major GLYN: As this question has been under consideration for a couple of years, is there any likelihood of a final decision being made before long?

Mr. WOOD: A final decision would have been made long ago had the only people in whose consideration it lay been His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES, KENYA.

Mr. WATERSON: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether
the death roll amongst the natives at Nairobi has increased beyond that given in the first telegrams?

Mr. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the question of the hon. Member for Pontypool yesterday.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the membership of the committee which held an inquiry into the shooting of natives at Nairobi was composed entirely of white men; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the appointment of a committee, including natives and Indians, to investigate the causes leading up to this lamentable incident?

Mr. WOOD: I have no information as to any inquiry. I propose to await the despatch which the Governor is sending on this subject.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman find out whether representatives of the native State and/or of the Native Affairs Commission have a place upon the committee?

Mr. WOOD: I do not think my Noble Friend heard the first part of my answer; which was that I had no information as to such inquiry.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Yes, and I asked my hon. Friend if he would kindly find out?

Mr. WOOD: Oh. I will.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ACCOUNTS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether local education committees were consulted by his Department before the new form of accounts was adopted; whether he is aware that the imposition of this new form of accounting towards the end of a financial year involves considerable extra expense; and, under these circumstances, will he consent to the postponement of the application of these alterations until after the 31st instant?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): I can add
nothing to the replies previously given on this matter by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and myself.

Mr. THOMSON: Is it clear that the Board of Education agree to this postponement?

Mr. FISHER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HURD: If the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to revise this decision, will he consult the local authorities so that the exact position may be quite clear?

Mr. FISHER: I think we are making the position quite clear to the local authorities.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board's new method for the keeping of education accounts by local authorities requires the receipts to be submitted under approximately 67 different headings, and the expenditure to be shown under about 210 different headings; and has he received representations from the authorities who will have to do the work that, in their opinion, the new forms will not supply in some instances the information the Board requires, and will also entail considerable extra expense to carry out?

Mr. FISHER: As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing to previous answers by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and myself. As regards the second part of the question, a suggestion to this effect has been made, but I am not aware that the form is inadequate for the purposes of the Board's requirements.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, owing to the local authorities not having been informed till December of the proposed change, that it will involve great difficulty and expense in altering the accounts for the current year?

Mr. FISHER: In view of that fact, we are making concessions to the local authorities.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS (ATTENDANCE FORM).

Mr. HURD: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is the exact purpose and meaning of Form 75 as., in revision and completion of Form 74gs.,
as sent to schoolmasters, especially what the Ministry desire to know when they call upon schoolmasters to declare why a pupil under 16 leaves school, while at the same time they indicate that it is not sufficient to show that the pupil left to follow some professional, commercial, industrial, or manual pursuits?

Mr. FISHER: It is a condition of the Board's recognition of a secondary school for grant that the pupils should normally remain in attendance until at least the age of 16, and the enforcement of this condition is necessary if waste of public funds is to be avoided. The form in question is designed to enable the Board to ascertain whether and how far the premature withdrawal of particular pupils is justifiable. Apart from exceptional circumstances, the Board cannot regard the position of a school as satisfactory if a large number of pupils leave before 16 to enter employment.

Mr. HURD: What is it exactly the Board wants to know, seeing that they exclude the question of subsequent employment?

Mr. FISHER: What the Board wants to know is why the children are withdrawn without adequate and good reason.

INSTITUTIONS, WALES (GRANTS).

Major JOHN EDWARDS: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education what was the total amount of grant paid by the Board in the last complete financial year in respect to the following non local education authority institutions in Wales, viz., secondary schools, training colleges, and technical institutes?

Mr. FISHER: The grants paid by the Board of Education in respect of non-local education authority institutions in Wales (that is, grant not paid to or through a local education authority) in the financial year 1920–21 were as follows: Secondary schools, £97,412; training colleges (including maintenance allowances to day students), £79,326; technical institutions, £2,000.

ART SCHOOLS.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now considered the memorial presented to him on the 12th
January by the National Society of Art Masters in favour of an appointment being made to the post of chief inspector of schools of art; whether he is aware that this post serves useful purposes in co-ordinating all branches of art education; and what is his decision on this question?

Mr. FISHER: The suggestions in the memorial to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, with other matters connected with art instruction in schools under the supervision of the Board of Education, are receiving consideration. I hope to arrive at a decision shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 82.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can see his way to revive the national competition and exhibition of schools of art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, in view of its value to British industry and the fact that the cost of such competition is much less than that of the exhibition recently held at the same museum in connection with the Board of Trade?

Mr. FISHER: In the present financial circumstances, I do not consider it practicable to revive the national competition. I am not aware of the basis on which the suggestion in the last part of the question rests

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CHALTON.

Mr. W. NICHOLSON: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the proposal of the Hampshire Local Education Authority to close the elementary school at Chalton, Horndean, Hants; that the consent of the managers has not been given to this closing; that no meeting of managers has been called in connection with the matter; and that 90 per cent. of the inhabitants signed a petition to the Local Education Authority to protest against the closing of the school; whether a petition has recently been received by him, signed by the entire body of inhabitants, protesting against the proposal; and if he will have the question thoroughly investigated?

Mr. FISHER: I am aware of the proposal that this school should be closed. That Board asked for the observations of the managers on the matter, and received a reply from the chairman of the managers and correspondent of the school
stating that he thought there was no objection to the closure and that it was a rightful economy. The Board interpreted this letter as meaning that the managers agreed with the Local Education Authority, and informed the Local Education Authority accordingly. In view of the hon. Member's question I will make further inquiry.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.

Mr. MALONE: 84.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Burnham standard and the Pensions Act of 1918 have attracted a number of young people, among them many ex-service men, into the teachers' training institutions, from which some have already been drafted into the teaching profession; and, seeing that there is a strong feeling among these students and teachers that the proposed 5 per cent. deduction from salaries for superannuation purposes constitutes a breach of the conditions under which they entered this profession, will he reconsider this question?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Monday, 27th March, to the hon. Member for the Hemsworth Division (Mr. John Guest).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, however desirable it may be to reduce the emoluments of teachers or not, surely strict faith ought to be kept with them, and if this is a breach of the conditions of their appointment no reduction ought to be made without giving them notice?

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government accepted the award—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATE CONTRIBUTIONS.

Mr. MALONE: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour what has been the total amount of the State contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Acts and the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act for the year ending 31st March, 1922?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The total amount of the State contribution under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the year ending 31st March, 1922, is approximately £6,200,000. In the case of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants' Act, which first came into operation early in November last, the corresponding amount is about £2,100,000.

AFFORESTATION SCHEMES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 104.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he can give the number of schemes in respect to afforestation made under the unemployment scheme; if so, where and under what authority are such schemes in England, Scotland, or Wales; can he give the acreage planted, the cost of each scheme, the name of such areas in urban or rural areas, and the number of men engaged in each area; and the amount of money spent in each area and the amount spent by individuals, if any?

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER (for the Forestry Commissioners): In respect to afforestation 592 schemes have been made under the unemployment scheme; such schemes have been entered into by the following authorities:
England—East Biding County Council, Borough of Tiverton, Leeds Corporation, Borough of Stratford-on-Avon, Liverpool Corporation, Bristol Municipal Charities, Clitheroe Corporation, Halifax Corporation, Borough of Kidderminster, Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Duchy of Lancaster:
Scotland—Dundee Water Commissioners, Dunfermline Town Council, Forfar Town Council, Airdrie Coatbridge Water Trust, Aberdeen Town Council, Lanark Middle Ward, Forres Town Council, Glasgow Corporation, Selkirk Town Council, Inverness Town Council:
Wales—Mountain Ash Urban District Council.
Information is not available with regard to the acreage already planted; the acreage will be ascertained when the areas are checked on the conclusion of the planting season. Under the approved schemes, however, 26,039 acres are being planted of which 12,767 are in England and Wales and 12,216 in Scotland; 21,637 are being prepared for planting, of which 6,084 are in England and Wales and 15,334 in
Scotland; 8,222 are being cleared of scrub, of which 4,525 are in England and Wales and 3,697 in Scotland. In addition, there are road-making schemes and works of maintenance, which cannot be stated by area. On 18th March (date of latest return) 4,548 men were employed on the schemes, of which 2,879 were engaged in England and Wales and 1,601 in Scotland. The total cost of the schemes to the State is estimated at £206,230, which includes: England and Wales, £126,043; Scotland, £78,025. The total of £206,230 includes £66,006 for schemes on Forestry Commission areas, £66,544 for schemes in the Crown woods, and £73,680 payable in grants, including £24,726 payable in England and Wales and £48,954 in Scotland. It is estimated that the amount spent by individuals, if all the schemes are completed, will be in the neighbourhood of £200,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADES DISPUTE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 88.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continued non-settlement of the engineering and shipbuilding trades dispute, he will now cause an inquiry into the matter to be instituted under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of the setting up of a Court of Inquiry in connection with the difference in the engineering and allied trades is and has been constantly before us. But we have not been without hope that an accommodation might be reached between the parties themselves. Should that possibility not be realised we shall have to consider the situation then arising. But I most sincerely hope that neither of the parties will relax effort to find a settlement simply on the strength of the ultimate possibility of our intervention. As regards the wage difference in the shipbuilding trades, my hon. Friend is, of course, aware that a ballot of the men is now proceeding on the later offer made by the employers. The result of that ballot will be announced, I think, not later than next Wednesday morning. Until the result of that ballot is known, it would be improper for me to make any statement as to the future course of events.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard the latest up to 12 o'clock to-day as to what has really happened in regard to the engineering dispute, and if representations are made to the Government will they consider the setting up of a Court of Inquiry?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do know the latest, and a deputation will be received by us after questions, about 5.30 this afternoon.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Assuming that the ballot is unfavourable to the acceptance of the terms of the employers, will the Government be prepared to institute a Committee of Inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no right to assume that the ballot will be favourable or unfavourable, but whichever it is, until we know, it would be improper for me to make any statement as to the future course of events.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. GILBERT: 91.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether a line, conference has been set up by the Midland Railway Company for the police in their employ in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1921; and, if not, whether it is proposed to set a time limit before which all line conferences must be set up?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply. I understand that steps are being taken to establish the conference referred to by my hon. Friend. I have no reason to suppose that there will be undue delay in setting up these conferences.

NEW HIGHWAYS, SOUTH YORKSHIRE.

Major KELLEY: 90.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport what progress has been made with the construction of new highways in South Yorkshire; and what sums have been granted for this purpose in the current year by his Department or from Lord St, Davids' Fund?

Mr. NEAL: As the answer involves a statistical table, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

The table given below refers to schemes for the construction of new highways in

Authority.
Description.
Estimated Cost.
Amount of Grant from Road Fund.
Probable Date of Completion.





£
£



Bradford C.B.C.
…
100 feet road from School Green to Fairweather Green, partly by widening existing Thornton Road.
126,698
63,350
September, 1922.


Hull C.B.C.
…
100 feet road, Walton Street to Calvert Lane.
33,400
16,700
Almost completed.


Rotherham C.B.C.
…
New Road to Sheffield, from Psalters Lane and Ferham Road Junction to existing Sheffield Road at Blackburn Brook.
42,963
21,481
November, 1922.


Sheffield C.B.C.
…
120 feet road Intake to Darnall
73,721
36,860
Completed.


Rawmarsh U.D.C.
…
60 feet road Aldwarke Road to Netherfield Road.
15,581
7,790
Just commenced.


Leeds C.B.C.
…
Sections of Ring Road:







Adjoining Housing Scheme at Middleton.
18,744
6,189
Completed.




Ottley Road — Weetwood Lane.
12,878
6,439
Completed.




Dewsbury Road—Middleton (Town St.).
55,083
27,541
June, 1922.




King Lane—Harrogate Road
14,886
7,443
Completed.




Tongue Lane—King Lane
16,790
8,395
July, 1922.

The following is a list of schemes for the construction of new roads in South Yorkshire, towards the cost of which assistance has been given by the Unemployment

Authority.
Description.
Amount of Loan approved.
Period (Years).





£



Guiseley U.D.C.
…
Extension of Netherfield Road
6,205
20


Batley B.C.
…
Ealand Road Extension
5,907
20


Penistone U.D.C.
…
New road at Mortimer Road
1,800
20


Leeds C.B.C.
…
New road from Elland Road to Yelderd Road.
56,022
20





6,396
30




New road, Brislingthorpe to Moortown
128,244
20




New road, Pudsey Road to Whitehall Road.
107,306
20


Bradford C.B.C.
…
New road, Cleckheaton Road to Halifax road.
41,980
20


Hull C.B.C.
…
Extension of Charterlands Avenue to Cottingham Road.
14,937
20





36,660
30

RAILWAY RATES (SOUTH WALES FISH TRADE).

Mr. STANTON: 94.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the railway companies are killing the fish trade in South Wales by their charges for

South Yorkshire, towards the cost of which grants have been made from the Road Fund:

Grants Committee, on the basis of a contribution of 65 per cent. of the loan charges for half the period of the loan:

transport; that many miners are unemployed at the present time in South Wales and that they cannot get fish food owing to the cost and scarcity caused by the railway companies; and will he have an inquiry into this matter at once, with
a view to providing the poor with cheaper fish and preventing the waste of food which is going on at present by the destruction of many tons of fish caused through high charges of transit?

Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question, and would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him in answer to a similar question on the 10th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask if there has been any reduction of the railway rates on this traffic from the highest level which they reached after the War?

Mr. NEAL: I am not aware if there has been, but there is ample machinery under the Railways Act for getting the matter adjusted.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Why has not the Act been put in force?

Mr. NEAL: Because the traders have not taken the necessary steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

ABERDARE SCHEME.

Mr. STANTON: 98.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Aberdare Council's housing scheme has turned out to be a failure; that the original estimate per house was £750; that only 23 houses have been completed during the last two years; and that the cost has gone over £2,000 per house; and will he, in the interests of the citizens of Aberdare, institute an inquiry at once, with a view to ending such use of the ratepayers' money?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I have already caused a special investigation to be made into the progress and cost of this scheme, and the inspector's report is now under consideration.

WORKMEN'S HOUSES, CAMBOIS, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. CAIRNS: 99.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that part of Cambois colliery village, Northumberland, has been flooded; that 60 workmen's homes have been inundated with water, and that the furniture has been destroyed in many houses; and will he, as Minister of Health, help from the Imperial funds to
provide new houses for these unfortunate people?

Sir A. MOND: I regret that there is no fund at my disposal out of which compensation could be given for the damage caused by the floods to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that a voluntary fund is being raised in the locality.

Mr. CAIRNS: That is no good. It is merely a case of the poor helping the poor.

Sir A. MOND: I have no power to do more.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL DOCKYARDS (ENTRANTS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 100.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if a date, day, and hour has been decided upon before which, or after which, all men entering the dockyards are pre-War or post-War entrants; and if he will give such date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Men who entered the dockyards before midnight on 4th August, 1914, are pre-War entrants; those who entered later are not pre-War entrants.

Sir B. FALLE: Will my right hon. Friend have that decision conveyed to the dockyards?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' WAGES.

Mr. CAIRNS: 103.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that there are over one million of miners employed in the mines of this country; that £110,000,000 are paid in wages; that £160,000,000 is the capital invested in coal mines, and that for every £4 paid in wages, capital and costs average £3; that over £20,000,000 is earned by capital as profit and as surplus profit; will he say what is paid under the heading of other than wages as costs, and if profits exceed 12 per cent. on capital invested; if that is 50 per cent. increase over 1914; and if miners' wages are 25 per cent. only above 1914 wages?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): With regard to the capital invested in the industry, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 19th April, 1921, to the hon. Member
for Frome. As to the remainder of the question, no statistics are yet available except for the period of control and the quarter immediately succeeding the resumption of work after control. Conditions during these periods were, of course, quite abnormal, and any conclusions drawn from them would be altogether misleading as an indication of what the condition of the industry is at present, or is likely to be in the near future. As soon as later figures are available I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the information. I ought, perhaps, to add that I cannot understand how the proportion of £4 to £3 suggested by the hon. Member can have been arrived at.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS.

Viscount WOLMER: 107.
asked the Secretary of State for War the grounds on which the balance-sheet of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, audited and certified by Messrs. Maxwell, Hicks, and Company, as on 31st August, 1920, is considered to be unfit for publication?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply given to him on the 28th instant, to which I have nothing to add.

Viscount WOLMER: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply gave no reason at all?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Viscount WOLMER: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my question No. 108 has not been called?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not call on the Noble Lord because he has exceeded his ration [three questions].

Oral Answers to Questions — WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 109.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the order for silver medals at present being made at Woolwich has been reduced by 150,000; whether this work was done as well as and cheaper than by private contract; whether he can state the reasons
for this reduction and the subsequent closing down of this part of the factory, whether the silver-coin factory is to be closed down after stocktaking; whether this work is at present being done satisfactorily by a staff mainly ex-service men; whether 20,000,000 small-arms originally given to Woolwich to be broken up have been taken away from the S.A.A.F. department and given to private firms to be broken up; whether in consequence 60 men, mainly ex-service men, have been dismissed; whether, in view of the Tipton disaster, he will revise this order and have the small-arms broken up by experienced men; whether the Government intend closing any or all of those departments after 1st April: and whether, in view of the unemployment in Woolwich, they will reconsider their policy?

Sir R. SANDERS: Woolwich is manufacturing the entire order for silver war medals, and there is no question of any reduction. Possibly the hon. Member has in mind the difference between the rough estimate of 6,000,000, and the later ascertained requirements of approximately 5,850,000. The medal and coin factories will be closed down when their work is completed. So far as I am aware, the coin work has been done satisfactorily, as stated. Big stocks of small-arms ammunition are stored at Woolwich for breaking down. Certain of these stocks have been disposed of, but this has not involved any discharge of labour, as there is sufficient of this material left to keep the facilities at Woolwich in employment. The consistent policy of the War Office has been to keep Woolwich departments in work as long as possible, and to minimise discharges by every legitimate measure.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Department intends to close down any of the departments at Woolwich mentioned in the question after stocktaking?

Sir R. SANDERS: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. That is part of the original question.

Sir R. SANDERS: The question is rather a long one.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have given notice of it, and I must press for the reply, because stocktaking takes place on the 1st April.

Sir R. SANDERS: I will undertake to look into the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: I will raise the matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MASSACRES, ASIA MINOR

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether his attention has been called to the telegram from the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Archbishop of Canterbury in which lie states that on 25th February 20 Greek villages were destroyed by fire in the region of Kerassunde, in the Pontus, by the order of Osman Agha, Mayor of Kerassunde and Kemalist military commander, and on 1st March the villages of Beislan, Pozat, Tepekeny and Kiavour-hiki were also burned down, the inhabitants—consisting only of women and children, who were previously imprisoned in the houses—having completely perished in the flames; and whether adequate steps have been taken at the recent Paris Conference to ensure the protection of Christians in the Pontus and other regions in the Near East, and to put an end to these horrible massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I much regret that, not having received my hon. Friend's notice of this question until the House had actually met, I am not in a position to give him an answer.

Lord R. CECIL: Can the hon. Gentleman say, without notice, whether the Government contemplate taking any steps to prevent massacres of this kind, which will certainly take place in all the territories affected by the new Agreement which has been made in Paris?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot answer that. Perhaps the Noble Lord would put the question down for Monday.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I say, as a matter of personal explanation, that I cannot account for the delay, in my notice reaching the hon. Gentleman, because I sent the letter by messenger at 12 o'clock?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

EXCISE DUTY REMITTED.

Lieut. - Colonel COURTHOPE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government
have yet come to a decision on the proposal, placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently by a large and representative deputation, to grant a temporary remission of the Excise Duty on home-grown sugar in order to assist the establishment of the sugar-beet industry in this country?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Yes, Sir. The Government have decided that, in view of the exceptional circumstances of this new industry, and the condition of unemployment in this country, no Excise Duty should be charged on home-grown sugar, and the necessary provision for the removal of the existing Duty will be made in the Finance Bill of this Session. It is, of course, impossible to bind any future Government, but, in view of the fact that the remission of Excise is intended to assist a new industry during the experimental period, it may be hoped that Parliament would not re-impose any Excise Duty until the industry has been firmly established.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have the right hon. Gentleman's Liberal colleagues in the Government accepted this solution of the difficulty?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: This is the decision of the Government.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I ask when this decision was reached and when it became operative—whether it applies to this immediate financial year, or whether it will not become operative until a decision is reached by this House upon the proposals made in the Finance Bill for 1922–23?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Have any conditions been laid upon the firms in this industry in this country that the difference caused by the remission of the Excise Duty is not going to be imposed upon the consumers in this country, and thereby give a larger profit to those concerned in the industry?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There will be nothing imposed on the consumer. Unless this remission is made, the industry will not proceed. That is the only point. No special conditions have been laid down. As to when the remission comes into operation, the announcement which is made to-day will enable growers to plant their beet, but, of course, it cannot
actually come into operation until it has been enacted by this House.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to the last question makes it clear that a decision of this House will be necessary before anything can come into operation.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. If the matter is not to be discussed until the Finance Bill is introduced, are not these people going to receive the benefit in anticipation of the decision of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is really not a point of Order. It is quite clear that the Government have announced what they will propose to the House, and that is all they can do.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. WALSH: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he can indicate the course of business for next week, and if he can also inform the House whether any change is proposed in the order of business as set down upon the Order Paper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I am sorry to say that I have again to ask the indulgence of the House for a change in the business which stands upon the Order Paper for to-day. The Bound Table Conference at the Colonial Office is still proceeding, and, though caution is imposed upon everyone in dealing with the Irish question, I am not without hope that that Conference may lead to results materially conducive to peace. But it is not concluded yet, and it would certainly be inadvisable and practically impossible to proceed with the discussion of the Lords1 Amendments to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill pending the conclusion of the Conference. I would therefore ask to postpone the first Order until to-morrow, when the Amendments to that Bill will be taken as the first Order, and when my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary hopes to be in a position to make a full statement to the House of the results of the Conference.
In order that the Royal Assent may be given to the Bill to-morrow, I propose to put upon the Notice Paper a Motion to suspend the Four o'clock Rule in respect of any further proceeding that may arise, if there be a second Message from the
House of Lords to this House, after we have considered and dealt with their first Amendments. It may be that both Houses may be agreed, and that no-further reference may be necessary; but, should the matter have to come back to us, we should desire to proceed with it, and complete it to-morrow if the hour of four o'clock had been reached.
As regards next week, we propose to take the Motion on the Genoa Conference on Monday.
On Tuesday, we shall move to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service and Revenue Departments Estimates.
On Wednesday, we shall take the East India Loans Bill, the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, the Juries Bill from the House of Lords, and other Orders on the Paper.
On Thursday, we shall take the Ministry of Labour Vote.
Friday is allotted to Private Members' Bills.
In the circumstances of the announcement that I have just made, I do not propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: If the Irish Conference, as we hope, come to a successful termination, will it not be necessary for the Government to move some Amendments to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill to-morrow. If that be so, could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to endeavour to get those Amendments printed and circulated in the papers to-morrow, so that hon. Members, before they come down to the House, may see them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Churchill).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask whether the Summer Time Bill is to be taken on Wednesday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the Colonial Secretary's statement to-morrow be made on the Motion, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered"?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think that will be the case.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the enactments relating to street trading by children and young persons under the age of seventeen in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

LAND VALUES RATING (ENGLAND) BILL,

"to enable local authorities in England to levy rates in respect of land values," presented by Mr. MYERS; supported by Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Mills, Mr. J. A. Parkinson, Mr. Sexton, and Colonel Wedgwood; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill,

Sheffield Gas Company Bill,

Durham County Water Board Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to assimilate and amend the Law of Real and Personal Estate; to abolish copyhold and other special tenures; to amend the Law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy; and to amend The Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911, The Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897." [Law of Property Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the preparation of Jurors Books, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Jurors and Juries, in England and Wales." [Juries Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent to acquire the Staffordshire Potteries undertaking of the British Gas Light Company, Limited; to amalgamate that undertaking and the existing gas
undertakings of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses aforesaid and to consolidate the special Acts and Orders relating thereto; and for other purposes." [Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation) Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Ossett with respect to the supply of water; and for other purposes." [Ossett Corporation (Water) [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the period limited by the Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation Transfer) Act, 1915, for the construction of certain works; to empower the Corporation of Nottingham to borrow further money in respect of such works or some of them; and for other purposes." [Nottingham Corporation Trent (Navigation) Bill [Lords.]

Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords],—That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Maguire's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Babington's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, with a request that the same may be returned.

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

Ossett Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation) Bill [Lords],

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

JURIES BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the period between the seventh day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-two and the end of the deficiency period, of an increased contribution towards unemployment benefit, and any other payment to be made out of the Unemployment Fund, not exceeding the amount determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls; and
(2) to authorise the Treasury to make, for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the unemployment fund in Great Britain under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, as amended by the said Act, advances out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, not exceeding at any time thirty million pounds, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof.

Mr. HAYDAY: I wish to raise a point or two upon this Money Resolution, because I feel that there is considerable misunderstanding both inside and outside the House as to the financial obligations that the State is undertaking, and as to the restrictions that the passage of this Resolution may place upon Members when the Bill is in Committee upstairs in moving Amendments to the Bill dealing with the payments. In view of some of the statements made yesterday upon the general question of the payment of what was then termed "doles," and in view of the assumption that in the main the State is the general paymaster and supplier of the funds, overlooking the money that comes from the joint contributions, it is just as well to remind the Committee
that there stood to the credit of the fund a sum of £20,000,000 or thereabouts in 1920 when the Amending Act, embracing a further 8,000,000 workers, came into 1581 Unemployment Insurance operation. We heard from the Minister of Labour during the discussion that in the first three months of the operation of the 1920 Act there was expended in unemployment benefit about £15,000,000, and that in the succeeding 12 months, including, I imagine, the period up to 5th April this year, the expenditure was £62,000,000. The Money Resolution now before us is intended to provide the Treasury's quota for the further period ending June, 1923, being the period covered by the Bill before the House. The estimated expenditure until June, 1923, is a further sum of £60,000,000. It is just as well to remember, therefore, that out of this total which is anticipated to be spent from November, 1920, to June, 1923, the State will only have contributed £30,500,000 towards the sum total of £137,000,000, £106,500,000 being the contribution expected from employers and from workmen. I should like, therefore, to dispel that stupid egotistical notion that this is a form of out-relief, that you would not have to pay this if you would only permit men to be unemployed without income in order that they might compete to pull down the standard of wages with employés who happen to be in work. Such a ludicrous, idiotic or cruel attitude at a time like this I should really never have credited to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson).
In view of the fact that you take £106,500,000 from two of the partners to this great effort to pay an amount which will enable the unemployed in the desert of adversity to tide over the journey, and your contribution is only £30,500,000, it appears to me that there is not very much to shout about, and there is not much credit to the State itself for its smallness of contribution. It is a third party interest. It is more than a third party interest, for indeed it is the determining authority as to the conditions under which the joint contributions shall be paid out. The three parties are never called together as to what amount the fund will stand paying out. They are never called together to determine the conditions under which it shall be paid out. Conditions vary and the State is the sole arbiter. They determine and decide all the conditions, and yet the
other contributors have to pay by far the larger amount of money. I do not want us to be in the same position we were in on the last occasion. We were then informed that the mere fact that the Money Resolution had passed through this House precluded us from amending any part of the Bill so as to vary the periods for which payment could be made or the amounts of such payments, or the share in contribution that the State should make towards the whole. I imagine this Resolution will tie our hands to that extent. I want to say that the State should pay a third share. I appreciate the fact that under the existing Act their share is a fifth. They now propose to increase it to a fourth.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): For the time being.

Mr. HAYDAY: I think, under the exceptional circumstances, it should not be less than a third. Why not? Even if my hon. Friend suggests that they should pay the whole lot, I again say why not? Who stands to benefit more than the State? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley says no one stands to benefit. No one would stand to benefit if ever he had his way. It would not be the crumbs from the table. Even those would be swept up and cleared out of the way. He spoke yesterday of sloppy sentimentalism. If in his makeup he has no room for any human feeling, it seems to me that he is something more than sloppy, and there are certain places where sloppy people are taken care of. I should like that point made clear by the Labour Minister, or perhaps the Deputy-Chairman would rule as to whether the passage of this Money Resolution will preclude us in Committee from varying the periods or the amount of payment to be made or the share of the State as the joint contributor to the Fund. If it does, I do not know whether I should be in order in moving an Amendment to make it clear that the contribution of the State, as the third partner, should be one-third, if there is going to be anything like equality of sacrifice in dealing with what is, after all, accepted by all men who think clearly as quite right and Justifiable, but one can quite appreciate how difficult it is for those who have
ceased thinking in a very healthy manner to understand the State's obligations in these matters I never expect anything short of a good sharp chisel would penetrate or let light into the hon. Member's mind. Certainly my tongue is not keen enough. I never expect him to acknowledge that anyone in this House can make a point except himself. He makes them in a very humorous strain. At Christmas there are such characters as clown and pantaloon, who are not altogether dissociated from the ludicrous attitude taken up by the hon. Member upon these matters. There are the three periods of five weeks. I cannot help thinking that the new Bill is worse than the existing Act in some respects. Under existing arrangements there are 16 weeks and a possible appeal for a further six, making a total of 22 weeks. It is true there would be a break from 5th April until June or July were it not for this provision. Then they would come in July for their further 16, plus a further six.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The emergency period under the existing legislation is at an end. All I did in the existing Act was to provide 25 weeks qualification so that they could start off after four weeks from that time, and I hope then to get back to a permanent state of affairs.

Mr. HAYDAY: Then we understand that from. July the permanent state of affairs would have been 16 weeks with a possible further extension.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Four only, if we had not got this Bill.

Mr. HAYDAY: From July to November.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Onwards.

Mr. HAYDAY: Therefore the present Bill, in consequence of the continued state of unemployment, now proposes to continue, as from 22 weeks, periods of 15 weeks, covering 30, so that from 17th April those successful in re-establishing their old claims or establishing new claims will have five weeks of benefit. There are then to be five weeks without any benefit at all. Notwithstanding the fact that they have already established a claim for the first five weeks, unless they have the 20 stamps to their credit they must have their case re-examined for the second five weeks—that is those who may have come on the fund in November, 1920,
or at a subsequent period under the special arrangement then made and who could not qualify according to the number of stamps. They will have another five weeks without anything. They must again have their case reviewed for the third five weeks, and so for a period of 30 weeks. And hon. Members sometimes talk as though this is a payment of 15s. per week all the year round. I heard that yesterday. They say "There is 15s. per week and there is 5s. for the wife." As a matter of fact it works out at 7s. 6d. per week for 30 weeks for those who have been successful in surviving two extra inquiries as to their right to benefit.
The Minister is providing for a possible average of one million and a half of unemployed until July, 1923. That shows a very small reduction in the unemployed market, and in view of the fact that many of these applicants, and those already on the register, have had a two months' period of wait without anything prior to last November, that they have never received more than £1 a week at the highest point of the previous Act of Parliament as individuals, throughout that long period of over 12 months—and there are some who have been continuously unemployed for well over 12 months—the position has been gradually getting worse and their physical standard becoming worse as the time goes on, and the avenue for sustenance becoming narrower and more cramped and confined, I suggest that the State, under these special circumstances, ought to raise their quota from one-fourth to one-third. That would enable those who will be cut off after their first or second five weeks to have some prolonged period of benefit. It may be said the five weeks' wait will mostly come in the summertime, but people are as hungry in summer as they are in winter.
It may be said that inclement weather and liability to physical breakdown or illness brought about by a lower standard of physique is less worthy of consideration in summer than in winter. I hope that that is not the outstanding reason for their not having equal payment during the summer and winter months. One can only imagine that this is one of those psychological freaks, one of the points of view, which those in charge too often apply falsely to a situation, and that is
that in winter time to leave people without any resource, to leave them cold to nurse their bitterness, means greater likelihood of open revolt than would be expected in the summer time. I can assure the House that that is not always a truism, because after going through a long period without sustenance, when winter falls upon them they are in a condition less able to rebut any of the illnesses that may overtake them, and you have the aggravation increased. It is not as though in the winter time you expect to be "out of the wood." On the estimate of the Minister of Labour, up to July, 1923, there will be one and a half million on the unemployment funds of the country. If you go five weeks through the desert and then when the oasis is reached you are told "you cannot have your fill; you can have a little, but you must go a further stage on," it is not like a message of hope, it is not rendering true help to the people who are called upon to bear a burden that becomes increasingly beyond their power to bear. Naturally they will fall by the way.
Would I be in order in moving such an Amendment as would make the State contribution one-third of the total instead of one-fourth? There is one point that in justice to the Labour Ministry should be emphasised. I confess that I am not quite clear as to the actual position. I would like to know whether any part of the expense of Employment Exchange administration is defrayed from the fund created by the general contributions or whether the total amount of Employment Exchange administration and of all the departments incidental to the registering and checking and the paying out of benefits is borne by the State without any part of it being attached to the general contributions to the unemployment fund. If the State bears the whole cost that certainly ought to stand to its credit. If it attacks the funds and draws from them any part for administration expenses, that is merely aggravating the unfairness of the partnership. You have three partners and two are the chief payers. The third partner sets down the conditions under which the bulk of the contributions shall be paid. It would be wise if the Labour Minister called together some kind of conference representative of those interested, the contributors', the employers' and the workmen's side, and
also the State side, with a view of seeing whether from the present chaotic condition of things some suggestion could emerge that would enable the Ministry, the Exchanges and the recipients of this benefit to meet many of the difficulties that arise.
I realise that some of this money will go to provide for the continued payment for the excess period in the case of those who have established their right by the 20 stamps on their cards. I wish to clear away one misapprehension. It is said that the youth, the single person, may possibly be swept aside on these extension periods. That can apply only where the condition as to 20 stamps has not been fulfilled, because any person, young or old, who has established a right behaving the 20 stamps on his card, will not have his ease brought up for review at any of these subsequent periods. He will have established his right, and that will carry him through. That will do away with one of the difficulties in the old Act, which provided that all cases had to be reviewed separately. I appeal to the Minister to initiate some machinery which, in the case of those whose claims have to be reviewed after these periods, will ensure greater rapidity of review than is shown now. The Minister of Labour rightly paid a tribute to those voluntary committees of tradesmen, workpeople, and others, which have had an enormous task thrust upon them in areas where nearly half the male adult population have had their cases reviewed. I suggest that some machinery should be set up that will deal with such cases with greater expedition. Suppose a man has established his right for the first number of weeks. To leave him for a month or six weeks in a state of uncertainty as to whether his claim is allowed for an extended period, he meanwhile having no income at all, is bound to add to his privations and anxieties. Each day he tramps home after seeking work, and has to see his wife and children in want, and yet is unable to satisfy any of their material needs. If you keep a man in suspense for four, five, or six weeks before you either admit or refuse his right to benefit for an extended period, you are acting cruelly and harshly. That ought to be avoided. No doubt there will be ample opportunity in Committee to deal with that larger question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been asked whether it would be in order to move an Amendment which would increase the charge. It is a very old, in fact, one of the oldest traditions of this House, that a private Member cannot move an Amendment or a Motion which would increase the charge beyond the amount in the Motion put forward by a Minister of the Crown. But in this ease the Resolution setting up this Committee, and the Motion that is put down by the Minister of the Crown, with the King's Assent signified, are rather wide, and, so far as I can read the Resolution, there is no limitation of the amount of money that might be moved in this Committee on this Resolution. It is often thought by Members of the Committee that the words of a Motion on the Paper are the governing words, but the words which govern this Committee are the words setting up this Committee, and the words setting up the Committee are:
The Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of an increased contribution towards the unemployment benefit.
There is no limitation there. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has given me notice of an Amendment which would increase the charge. It is not within my power to move it out of order, because of the setting-up Resolution. When the Bill goes into Committee the Resolution that governs that Committee is the Resolution we pass, but the Resolution that governs us is the Resolution of the House setting up this Committee, and in it I see no limitation.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: May I ask for a further ruling. It seems quite clear that we can increase the charge, but that when it comes to the Bill there will be no possibility of increasing the charge that stands in the Bill as introduced by the Government. Therefore, though this Committee may have passed an increase, either the Bill would be made null and void or the Resolution passed in this Committee would be null and void.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Chairman of the Committee on the Bill would be governed by the Resolution passed by this Committee.

Mr. HOPKINSON: There is only one point relevant to this discussion of which I would wish to remind the Committee.
Before doing that I wish to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) for a display of wit and swordmanship that I have never seen equalled in this House. The only trouble is that his delicate rapier thrusts fail entirely to penetrate that colossal stupidity which I am afraid he regards as my chief quality, and, therefore, his efforts are wasted upon me. The hon. Member spoke repeatedly of the contributions of the State in respect of this Resolution. He said repeatedly that there are three partners in this matter, the employer, the workman and the State, and he implied that the third partner in the concern was not doing its proper duty in the matter, that it was ungenerous and ought to contribute a very much larger sum to the common fund. Of all the dangerous errors which circulate on the Labour benches the greatest and the most dangerous is the idea that the State is in possession of money which it can pay out whenever it is required to do so. As a matter of fact the State, in the very nature of things, has not a penny and never could have a penny under any possible conditions. When you speak of the State you simply mean in reality the two other partners in the concern, the employer and the employed. That being so, every penny of what is called State contribution is simply an additional load upon the workers and employers in the industries concerned.

Mr. W. THORNE: We know all about that. Give us something new.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman's colleague (Mr. Hayday) does not know. Therefore I feel I am justified in endeavouring, as far as lies in my stupid power, to teach him one of the elementary principles.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The ruling which you have just given, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, makes it very much easier for some of us to put one or two points regarding this Money Resolution, which, probably, otherwise we would have hesitated to do, because of the idea that we were not at liberty to suggest anything that meant an increase in the charge. The broad position under this Resolution, as I understand it, is that we are making provision for fifteen months ahead, and that, according to the estimate at 1st July, 1923, the indebtedness of this fund will be, approximately, £27,000,000, on
the basis that for more than a year ahead we are to have 1,500,000 people unemployed. I do hope that that is a pessimistic forecast, and that, in point of fact, things will be very much better in this country than the basis on which the Minister of Labour has proceeded. The consideration which I want to urge divides itself into two points. First of all, if things are actually better than was suggested by the Minister of Labour, I think provision should be made in the Bill for giving rather better treatment in those blank periods between the allowances which are not covered at the present time and during which the applicants for assistance will require to have recourse to some other agency, Poor Law or whatever it may be, in the State. In the second place, may I make a suggestion regarding those blank periods in the time between April and October next and in the period beyond. As I understand the proposal of the Minister of Labour it amounts to this, that between April and October next, a period of, approximately, 30 weeks, there will be in all 15 weeks of allowances, divided into three periods of five weeks each, and it is indicated that in the periods which are not covered by the allowances applicants will have, to rely on their own resources or fall back on the Poor Law or any other kind of assistance they can get. Might I make this suggestion, that in the period to which we are now advancing, conditions, as regards the Poor Law, are bound to be substantially different from anything we have hitherto experienced, for this reason, that owing to the very grave depression of the past year or 18 months the resources of an enormous number of people have become exhausted, and, at the same time, the power of people who have been in employment or partial employment to assist those less fortunate than themselves has been undermined. Therefore, there is not the slightest doubt there will be an inevitably greater tendency to rely on the Poor Law in the time to which we are now advancing.
In the course of the debate yesterday an hon. Member on this side of the House indicated that it might be more economical in some respects to rely on Poor Law assistance than to make further provision under this Bill. Might I on that head make this suggestion, that that probably would have been true if the old
conditions of Poor Law assistance had obtained. But as we know perfectly well it has been necessary to extend the scope of the Poor Law because of this crisis. If I may take the case of Scotland as an illustration of a country in which a very extreme form of Poor Law is applied, we will see exactly what I mean on this point. In Scotland formerly no assistance was given where the applicant was able-bodied, although there was always provision that in times of national stress or emergency that rule might be waived and a certain amount of relief to able-bodied given. At the present time in practice it has become necessary to relieve in many large areas all and sundry, and in the time to which we are shortly passing, and more particularly in those blank periods under this Bill, it will be necessary for the Poor Law authorities practically to disregard their old rules regarding Poor Law relief and give such assistance as they can to those who are unemployed and to the very large numbers dependent upon them. If that is true, it becomes perfectly plain that we are going in the financial proposals of this Bill to perpetrate a very serious injustice, as in my judgment there will be no substantial difference between what we are going to pay under this Measure and what the Poor Law authorities will be compelled to pay. But there will be a very great difference indeed in the manner in which that burden is imposed upon the ratepayers of this country.
Within recent times in Scotland, and England too, attention has been drawn to the manner in which this grave financial burden has been imposed on the crowded areas for relief of unemployment, falling particularly on those districts in which distress is most acute. If the ordinary rules in the tracing of liability could be followed, or the normal procedure of the Poor Law were in force, it might be possible to attain some kind of fair distribution, but in existing circumstances everybody knows relief must be given on the basis of necessity and a great deal of inquiry must be postponed. Already these local authorities have drawn attention to the enormous burdens which they are carrying and which, I think, they are going to carry to an even greater extent, particularly as regards those periods which, under this Bill, will find no provision made for unemployed
people at all. My contention is this, that if we are bound to give assistance it would be far better business for the State to give that assistance under this Bill, and try and do something to fill up these blank periods during which, beyond the shadow of a doubt, these people must have recourse to the Poor Law, which will introduce two sets of administration for the one problem and at the same time bring within the scope of Poor Law relief a very large number of people who would never otherwise, if my plan were adopted, come within its compass at all.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I hope the Minister will take note of the remarks of the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). Let me take, as an illustration of the point he made, the rates imposed upon the Rhondda Urban District Council. In the Rhondda thousands of miners are idle, and in Monmouthshire as well, whereas in Cardiff unemployment is not so great. The rates imposed by the guardians were practically 50 per cent. higher in the Rhondda and in Monmouthshire than in Cardiff. We have two millionaires from Cardiff in this House, and there were about five millionaires who made about five millions in Cardiff during the War. I think the point put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh is this, that this ought to be a national responsibility and not a local responsibility. I am very pleased that in Committee upstairs, as I understand it, we shall be able now to move Amendments in so far as the money is claimed by the Minister of Labour—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All I said was that in this Committee I, as Chairman, was bound by the setting-up Resolution. I was careful not to give any ruling as to what should happen in another Committee; that would be outside my province altogether.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I understand by the Memorandum that the amount the Government will be borrowing is £5,800,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, that is the direct Treasury charge.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I do not consider that is sufficient.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Then there is borrowing power at the end of the Clause.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I think that in order to meet the exigencies and the claims of those who are unemployed this is not sufficient. There are people who have been idle ever since the slump took place—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not entitled at this stage to enter into a general discussion on the question of unemployment. We are now only considering the financial aspect, and I cannot allow another discussion such as we had yesterday on the Second Reading.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: The point I was going to bring out was that the Treasury is only going to borrow £5,800,000.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, that is the direct charge in addition.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: My point is that that is not sufficient. There ought to be a far larger sum. Some Ministers in other Departments can obtain money from the Cabinet for Russian refugees for instance. I, myself, as a taxpayer, have to contribute towards these Russian refugees.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member also contributes as a taxpayer to the Air Force and the Army, but he cannot bring those subjects into the discussion on a Financial Resolution on unemployment.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I wanted to show that the Government are contributing 15s. a week per man, 5s. for the wife, and 1s. a week per child, whereas, in other directions, so far as these people (the Russian refugees) are concerned, they are contributing £1 1s. 7d. to the man, £1 1s. 7d. to the wife, and to each child 14s. 3½d., making a total of about £4 6s. 1½d. for someone who has never fought for this country, and £1 a week and a shilling per child to someone who has sacrificed everything so far as this country is concerned, and is now walking the streets. I think that our own unemployed ex-service men should be treated better by us than these Russian refugees.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this discussion.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Resolution gives the Committee an opportunity of reviewing the financial side of
the Government insurance scheme. A short time ago the Insurance Acts had a surplus of £22,000,000. That surplus has disappeared. The Minister has already borrowed £14,500,000, and is taking power under the present Bill to increase his borrowing powers from £14,500,000 to £30,000,000—

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I have £20,000,000.

Sir G. COLLINS: To increase his borrowing powers from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. These large sums which the Government are borrowing for this purpose, as I have mentioned before, should not be borrowed. They should come from the annual revenue of the State. Certain Government organs often talk about the Poplar Guardians and their financial methods, but I think the talk might be fairly levelled against the Government. References have been made to the State making an increased provision for unemployment insurance, and the case has been put that for a certain five weeks during a given period the State will make a contribution to men and women who are out of work. During the next five weeks the unfortunate individuals who are out of work will pass to the guardians. The State, when the unemployed are receiving grants from that source, will not find any money for that purpose, and I think that, if the State can find further sums of money for this purpose, they will be well advised to consider the grave inequality which exists to-day as to unemployment varying in a marked degree in various parts of the country. The case was well put this afternoon by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), that through the piecemeal method of dealing with this situation grave inequalities are existing to-day. We have, times without number, pressed Ministers of the Crown on this point, and I hope, before the Debate closes on this Committee stage, that the Minister of Labour will give some assurance that, even if he cannot on this occasion announce the policy of the Government to deal with these grave inequalities, some statement will be made at an early date, so that the hardship and distress may be swept away. The War revealed that the people of this country were prepared to accept great sacrifices if those sacrifices were spread
evenly over the community. Great hardships are likely during the present 12 months because of unemployment, and that burden would be more loyally shared if there was an assurance that district by-district and trade by trade were evenly divided.

Sir W. PEARCE: Hon. Members on the Labour benches have raised a very important matter. I have taken an optimistic view of the situation myself, and, except for these present disturbances in the labour world, I think we should have got down to a better state of affairs. Still, we have to consider the situation as the Labour Minister gave it to us, which is, that we have a million and a half unemployed and only 15 good weeks' insurance benefits out of 30. The insurance only covers 15 weeks. This, perhaps, is the most important consideration which this House has to deal with at the present moment. I am glad that the suggestion is made that, if there is to be a further contribution, it should be made from the Government. We often lose sight of the contributions paid by industry and labour. This is an enormous burden at the present time, when every one is fighting against the cost of production. The burden that the employers and labour have to bear is an essential consideration. It is a question whether, in spite of the Geddes Economy Committee, something more should not be done by the State.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This debate must not develop into a general discussion on unemployment. That is a matter for the Second Reading. We are now dealing with the financial machinery.

Sir G. COLLINS: Would it not be in Order, if the State contribution wore increased, that that increase above the provision of the Bill could be set aside for the necessitous districts throughout the country?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is only a Financial Resolution, and I am prepared to allow a reasonable latitude, but the suggestion of the hon. Member would make it too wide.

Sir W. PEARCE: It only remains for the State to increase the contribution. If the State does not do this the burden will have to be met soon in some way. People cannot be allowed to starve, and
if it does not come from the State it must come from the Poor Rates. In districts where unemployment is above the average the burdens on the guardians are intense, and I suggest that it may be good business on the part of the House to increase the Government contribution. I rise from this side to add my voice to the plea of Labour that, under the special circumstances of the case, the Government, I hope, may be able to consider whether it is not possible, in view of the whole situation, to increase the Government contribution in respect of unemployment insurance.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Let me take up the discussion initiated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), and answer his points. To begin with, there is his inquiry as to this Financial Resolution—what it means, and what you can do under it. The Financial Resolution deals with State grant, paragraph 1, and with paragraph 2, borrowing. With regard to the first part, we are only there dealing with the State Grants under the Dependants' Act. It will come to an end on the 9th of May. We do not need to deal with the State contributions of the Insurance Act. We have that already under an earlier Financial Resolution and Act.

Mr. HAYDAY: The contribution is one-fifth. We now propose under the Kill that that should be one-fourth. How has this been brought about?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I say it is not necessary in this Financial Resolution to provide for the continuance of the State contribution to the Insurance Act. What we have not got is a Financial Resolution to enable us to carry on the 3d. for the men, 2d. for the women, boys and girls, provided under the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act. That is why we want power to carry that on as well. I submit that it would be out of order if this Resolution were passed as it stands, to move any Amendment which would increase either the rate or the amount of the State grant or the borrowing. If this Resolution passes as it stands, no hon. Member can move to increase the State grant or to increase the borrowing. Technically, an Amendment could be moved, increasing either the rates or the periods of benefit, and that brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for
Stepney (Sir W. Pearce). If an Amendment were moved, to increase the rates, I should have to point out that we cannot get the additional income by increasing the State grant, if this Resolution stands as it is. Then we should have to get it from one or other, or both, of the two remaining sources. We must either increase the contribution of the employer or the contribution of the employed person or both. I should have to tell the Committee at once, and I do tell the Committee, that this is out of the question. We cannot increase the contribution from the employers, because they are now heavy to a degree never contemplated before, and we cannot increase the contribution from the employed person.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman says that in such an eventuality he will be obliged to state that we cannot increase the contribution from the workman and we cannot increase the contribution from the employer. What becomes of the third?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Which?

Mr. HAYDAY: The State.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already pointed out that the Resolution as it stands, if agreed to by the Committee, would not permit us to increase that. If it leaves the Committee in the form in which it now is, it will constitute a bar to that.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I have put down an Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am only now saying what its effect will be if it is passed as it stands. Under its present form, if we seek to vary the period or increase the rate of benefit, we shall have to increase either the employer's or the employed person's contribution. We cannot do either. Both are out of the question. The contributions, as everybody knows, are very heavy, and they are paid very cheerfully both by employers and employed. Take, as an instance, the contribution paid by the employed person on short time. It is an extremely high contribution, admittedly, and the characteristic British desire to help those who are down and out has resulted in this, that I have had practically no complaint about these
heavy burdens either on the part of the employers or the employed persons. But I cannot carry them too far, and I think I have carried them as far as is possible. Therefore, I shall have to resist any proposal, such as it would be technically possible to make now, for either a variation of the period or an increase in the rates of benefit. There is another way in which this thing could be done, and that is by taking it out of the borrowing powers. The result of increasing the rates of benefit or extending the period would be that the borrowing powers would be exhausted more rapidly. Under such a proposal the borrowing powers would decrease the more rapidly and the fund would sooner become exhausted.

Mr. HAYDAY: Then come to the House again and get more borrowing powers.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid in that case I should be chidden, especially by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) for coming so often with insurance schemes. I am doing my best not to come more often than is absolutely necessary. I am afraid, in view of all these circumstances, I cannot accept proposals to vary the rates or the period, although, as I have said, an Amendment to that effect can be moved. Let me come to the precise charges which will come in course of payment under the Bill which is to be founded on the Financial Resolution as it stands before the Committee. In the Estimates for the Labour Ministry for 1922–3, which are to be discussed on this day week, provision is made for £8,161,760 Exchequer grant for the purposes we are now discussing. I have authority in a previous Financial Resolution for that, but in order to deal with the 15 months, I am adding to that amount by a direct Treasury charge of £5,800,000. As I have tried to make hon. members understand, it is that new charge for which I require the first part of this Financial Resolution. Looking at it from the Estimates point of view, I shall have to lay a Supplementary Estimate to cover such portion of the £5,800,000—this provision for the 15 months—as will come in course of payment in 1922–3 abated by such appropriations-in-aid as I shall receive from the fund in respect of administration. The hon. Member for Greenock has suggested that the Supplementary Estimate may
represent an increase of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. As I indicated previously, I have not the exact figure, but I do not dissent from that.
Taking the second paragraph of the Resolution, which deals with borrowing power, I may point out that last June I sought for borrowing powers of £20,000,000. I have got to subtract about £1,000,000 from the borrowing powers because of the transference of powers to Ireland for the purpose of unemployment insurance there. I therefore remain with roughly £19,000,000 of borrowing power under existing legislation. I am now asking for a total of £30,000,000 borrowing power, of which I have already got £19,000,000, or, in other words, I am asking for about £11,000,000 of additional borrowing power for Great Britain. Regarding the exhaustion of borrowing power, I have exhausted about £14,000,000 of the original £20,000,000—or £19,000,000, as it will be shortly, by the transfer of powers in the case of Ireland. On the assumption of unemployment which we have made, i.e., 1,500,000 from-June, 1922, to June, 1923, I expect to reach the exhaustion of the borrowing powers in this Bill if I get it, representing a total of £30,000,000 borrowing powers for Great Britain—I expect, rather, to reach the peak of my borrowing powers, which will be £28,500,000. about this time next year on the assumption I have indicated. Thereafter, I hope to reduce the debt to 27 millions when we have come to the end of the period for which we are now legislating.
That is a statement of what these two paragraphs involve and of what can and what cannot be done in connection with them. The hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay day) has asked why the State contribution is not increased to one-third? The State being one of three contributing parties, that would mean an equal amount from each. If the hon. Member will look at the Actuary's Report, he will find that the contribution of the three parties for the period I am dealing with comes to £56,000,000. If we increased the State contribution to one-third, the State contribution would be somewhere about £19,000,000. The provision already under the proposals is £14,700,000, and a proposal to increase the State proportion to one-third would, according to the
Actuary's statement, mean that the £14,700,000 would be £19,000,000. I cannot possibly do it.

Mr. HAYDAY: Why?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have not got the money. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member has said that I should go back to the Cabinet and get more out of them. I think I have done very well out of the Cabinet in this respect in being able to carry forward, as I am doing, this Measure giving the wife 5s. and the child Is. It was brought in originally as a little temporary Measure, and it was frankly put to the House as being for six months; and to continue benefit at the present level, remembering the financial straits, not only of the local authorities, as I admit, but of the Exchequer as well, I do not consider that these provisions are unsatisfactory. I cannot ask for provisions which would still further increase the Estimate, to which, as I have just stated, this adds £5,800,000, to say nothing of the increased borrowing powers. I cannot ask that the £14,700,000 should be increased to £19,000,000. I respectfully hope that my hon. Friends will not press me to widen this provision still further. There is no thing like it in any other country in the world. It may not be all that one might desire; the provision of 1s. a week for a child has often been described in this House as falling far short of what is desirable, but we should remember what has been provided from 1920 onwards. I have carried on under the Insurance Act 52 weeks' benefit, eight in the Fall of 1920, and two periods of 22 weeks each since. From this point onwards, I am providing 15 weeks to the end of October, and a possible 22 beyond that—one 12 and two possible 5's. That is the provision which is being made, and it is for uncovenanted benefit to people in some cases who have paid nothing at all into this fund, and certainly to a large number who have not paid sums which would qualify them for covenanted benefit. I have done that because I know when good times come they will be able to repay the benefits which they are now receiving in advance of contributions. Do hon. Members realise what has been done? First, the original 52 weeks, and now a further 15—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will not object if I in-
terrupt him reluctantly to point out that he is going into general matters which are not quite within the scope of the Resolution.

Dr. MACNAMARA: With great respect, Sir, I shall return to the Resolution, making the excuse that I was merely answering points which were put to me. The point as to the increase of the State's share is a matter which the Committee may have to deal with, and perhaps it would be as well to argue that if and when such a proposal is made. The hon. Member for West Nottingham also asked what I think is a very proper question, i.e., does the State pay the whole of the cost of administration in addition to the contribution? The reply is that it does not. There is a sum, not exceeding 10 per cent. of the total income of the fund, appropriated for administration expenses, and any balance of expenditure over that is met by the State, and in this Bill, it will be observed, we propose to change the 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent. With regard to the proposal for paying five weeks' benefit followed by a five weeks' interval, and thus making 15 weeks' benefit cover the 30 weeks up to the end of October, I have been asked as to the reason for delay in reviewing and determining qualifications. Nobody knows as well as my hon. Friend the enormous burden which is laid upon the local employment committees, and, as a matter of fact, they do their work with great expedition. There are claims which require close investigation, and I can say on their behalf that every effort is made to deal with these claims as quickly as possible. Last year alone the local employment committees who helped me themselves examined no fewer than 5,344,000 claims in the year. I have reason to believe everybody concerned did their utmost to make the scheme work as smoothly as possible. Finally, I hope the Resolution will stand. I shall have to resist its Amendment, for the reasons I have given, either in respect of the first paragraph, which deals with the direct charge, or in respect of the second paragraph, which deals with borrowing powers, because I say that, in all the circumstances of the strain which rests upon us, this is a provision which cannot be considered ungenerous, and remembering the pro-
vision which has been made during this long period, it is not a provision concerning which we need to be ashamed.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to move, in paragraph (1), to leave out the words
produced by weekly contributions paid in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls;
and to insert instead thereof the words
required to meet the full costs of unemployed persons' and dependants' benefits.
After the remarks of the Minister of Labour, I cannot see any hope of my Amendment being carried, but I intend to-press it, as well as others, if I can get the support of hon. Members, to a division. This Amendment seeks to throw upon the State the full burden of unemployment and the maintenance of the dependants. This is the attitude I have taken in previous debates, and I do not intend to shift my ground. I understand that by the terms of the Financial Resolution we may discuss the question of contributions from insured persona, and partly where some of the money can come from to bear the burden of the State's maintenance of the unemployed person. At the present time the unemployed person has, during a period of employment, paid certain sums in contributions to qualify him for his benefit.

Dr. MACNAMARA: He may have done so.

Mr. MACLEAN: Prior to these new Acts he has been doing so. That has been the custom. Now, owing to the widespread unemployment in the country, we have found it necessary not merely to meet the unemployment benefit to which the insured person is entitled, but also to meet some persons who figure as exempted persons, and in addition to pay a certain quota of benefit to the wife or housekeeper and the children of an unemployed person. At the present time we are paying those people 16s. a week, with 5s. for the wife or housekeeper, and 1s. per child. My grievance against the sum is not merely on the question of the recurring period of five weeks on and five weeks off, but that the sum paid is too low, that there is not sufficient being given to the unemployed person in the weeks during which he draws his unemployment benefit to maintain him in anything like comfort or in a satisfactory condition which would
enable him to undertake a physically hard day's work if he got the opportunity of employment. In other words, my grievance is that the unemployment benefit which we are paying enables the unemployed person only to keep starvation at bay, and that during this period he is gradually deteriorating, and consequently we believe that the amount of money paid to him and to his dependants should be increased. We also believe that the present unemployment crisis is not due to anything the individual has done, and consequently it is a national problem. The working man stands out to-day waiting the opportunity to have a situation, and he is prepared to accept work as it comes along. The function of the unemployment insurance money Resolution which we are now discussing is to provide the unemployed person with a sufficiency of money with which to purchase the necessaries of life to enable him to be competent, when a job comes along, to take that job and work at it in an efficient manner.
The national resources are to a very large degree untapped. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour asked the House where he could get the money from, and told us we had no money. His esteemed Leader has told us on previous occasions that a well equipped duke cost the country as much as two battleships, and if you reduced his income by half he would still live royally as one battleship. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been done!"] Yes, but it has been handed back again by the present Government. That there is plenty of money in the country has been shown by speakers in other Debates, and as the unemployed man to-day is naturally anxious to keep himself in that standard of efficiency that will enable him to give satisfaction when the opportunity of employment comes along, we agree that it is a State problem, that the Ministry of Labour ought to look upon it as such, and that the Treasury ought to come before the country with the full determination that, the burden of unemployment being a national problem and being due to national difficulties in the past arising from certain contingencies during periods of national stress, the problem ought to be met by the country as a whole. For example, you have various other men who are unemployed,
to whom you pay full rates of pay. You have various Departments of State to which men are recruited for certain purposes, and in which men are trained for certain purposes, but where those men are not every day, nor every week, nor indeed for several years, performing the functions for which they are trained and recruited, and yet you pay those men full rates, provide them with training—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting beyond his Amendment, which is only a question as between a sum equivalent to the weekly contributions and a sum equivalent to the sum required to meet the full cost of unemployment. It is only a different method of arriving at the equivalent sum, and the hon. Member must confine himself to that Amendment, and not have a general discussion of the unemployment question or go into other Departments.

Mr. MACLEAN: I thought I would be in order in drawing an illustration from another Department.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is difficult to know whether it is an illustration or a speech. An illustration does not take long, and if it takes up too much time it is not an illustration.

Mr. MACLEAN: With respect, Sir, I do not think my illustration has taken more than two minutes, and it would not have taken more than a minute longer to have put the point of the illustration. However, I shall not infringe your ruling. I shall be in order in pointing out where some of the money can be found.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into all the possible sources of revenue. That would be departing entirely from the general custom in dealing with Financial Resolutions in Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: I notice that it is suggested on the Paper that the money should be taken out of the Consolidated Fund, and that wipes out any suggestion of putting forward a policy of where the money can be obtained, but, in conclusion, I would point out to the Minister of Labour that the periods to which he has referred, the 15 weeks during the 30 weeks, and then again, I think, it is 12 weeks during the later period—

Dr. MACNAMARA: November to June. There are 12 weeks, with discretionary power to add two further periods.

Mr. MACLEAN: There is therefore the possibility of the man receiving unemployment donation, and there is also the possibility of his not receiving it. That is not a very healthy frame of mind in which to put the unemployed man, especially in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has himself told us of the probable number of people who will be unemployed during the ensuing 35 months. I sincerely hope his expectations will not be realised, but I think the matter might receive a little more attention, not only from the Government, but some more sympathetic attention from the Members of this House. The men and their dependants, when you look at it from the point of view that for five weeks they get 15s., with 5s. for the wife, or 20s. in all, and then for five weeks there is nothing, may starve. Anything may happen in the house, because there is nothing coming in. They may go upon the rates, but again they may be denied relief from the rates. Then there is another five weeks following, and so you go on for 30 weeks. Surely that is a fiddling, pettifogging method of approaching a grave and a serious question, the question of retaining and maintaining the physical efficiency of the working classes of this country who happen to be unemployed.
I am suggesting that your whole scheme be placed upon the Government. The working classes to-day, when there is so much unemployment, cannot provide the money. The employers, as has been admitted, find themselves heavily taxed because of the contributions. Wipe out those contributions, at least temporarily; recognise that this situation is merely temporary, as we all hope it will be, and look forward to the time when trade is fully going, when we can build up a balance on the unemployment fund, and make it solvent, and even repay some of the money which has had to be taken to meet the full brunt of unemployment at the present time. I hope the Minister of Labour and other Members of this House will approach this question and this money Resolution in the spirit that this is a matter of investment, and by meeting the full cost at the moment, the
result, when trade turns round, factories become busy and men and women find full employment, will be a restoration to the community in greater abundance than that which has been taken out by payments on behalf of the State.

Sir G. RENWICK: I am not sure whether, according to the ruling you, Sir, have given, we should be in order in discussing the Amendment, because I do not think, by the terms of the Resolution, we can, under the Bill, extend the scope. It is sufficient to me to make a few remarks with regard to what is provided under the Bill. I would like to point out to hon. Members representing the Labour party that we invariably find, whenever there is any proposal to give any grant from the State, they are never satisfied, and are always asking for more. I want to remind the Committee of this important point, that, according to the statement of the Government Actuary, no less than 11,250,000 workers have to contribute towards the money to be provided by the workers under this Bill for some 1,900,000 people who are estimated to be out of employment from April to July of this year. Afterwards, to the following July, it is estimated that 1,500,000 will be out of employment. I am an employer, and know something about the unemployment, and I should not be surprised if that 1,500,000 were possibly largely increased. If that be so, I think another Bill will be necessary to provide further sums for the unemployed. The reason why I think there will be an increase is owing to the state of the country at the present time in regard to strikes and threatened strikes.
Then, I would like to remind the Committee that these 11,250,000 workers have to provide £22,500,000 under this Bill, the employers have to provide £22,500,000, and the Government have to provide £15,000,000, making £60,000,000 altogether. The Government Actuary points out that, in addition, there will be £1,500,000 for interest, which, surely, at a time like this, is quite sufficient claim upon the State. Therefore, I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he is not going to agree to any increase, and I sincerely hope he will not do so. Some hon. Members seem to think that the 11,250,000 workers are all in favour of giving an increase of unemployment pay. I can assure them it is not
so. May I tell the Committee of an instance that came to me? About a week ago I was travelling in a mining district. There were five miners in the train, and one and all condemned these unemployment doles. I think that, considering the state of the trade of this country at the present time, £22,500,000 is enough to call upon the employers to pay, £22,500,000 is sufficient to call upon the workers to pay, and £15,000,000 is sufficient to call upon the Government to pay, and I am extremely pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has set his face against a further dole, or an increase of the unemployment pay, and I hope he will continue in that position.

Dr. MACNAMARA: This is an issue we have had before us on every Insurance Bill with which I have been connected, and on every Financial Resolution relating to an Insurance Bill. Was this to be a contributory system, or was it to be provided entirely by the State? Under this Bill, thanks to the contributory system, there will be, if necessary, £60,000,000 of benefit provided in the next 15 months, as to which a little over three-eighths will be found by the employers, less than three-eighths by the employed workers, and a quarter by the State. My hon. Friend opposite says, "No; you find the £60,000,000 entirely by the State." He said, "This is a temporary emergency, and when things improve we can put this again on a contributory basis."

Mr. MACLEAN: I was not putting that forward as an argument of my own, but on behalf of the unemployed in the country, to meet a probable objection on the part of my right hon. Friend.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I wondered if the hon. Gentleman had abated his claim to a non-contributory system. He is now, as is the Labour party generally, in favour of a non-contributory scheme. The Labour party makes no secret about it. Under my proposals, of the £60,000,000, the State will find about £14,700,000.

Mr. S. WALSH: Who is the State?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend is a most distinguished member of it. The taxpayer will pay £14,700,000.

Mr. WALSH: Of whom the working people, who pay three-eighths of the
benefits, constitute five-sixths of the State.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not suppose the taxpayers belong to one class. My hon. Friend will not suggest that. I say the taxpayer will pay £14,700,000 under this scheme. What my hon. Friend says is, "No, bring up the taxpayers' contribution to £60,000,000." We have divided on this proposition many a time, and I hope we may soon vote upon it again. I oppose it. I am in favour of a contributory system. I think it has worked admirably, and I am certainly against increasing the Exchequer grants in the next 15 months from £14,700,000 to £60,000,000, because it has not got it, and cannot pay it. Therefore, I do beg the Committee to reject the Amendment.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. WALSH: There has been much play made in every one of these discussions upon the State paying so much, the worker paying so much, and the employer paying so much. I think there is no man, certainly in this House, and very few outside, who know the economic meaning of the term "State" better than the right hon. Gentleman himself. Let us see, in one particular case, how this thing will work out. I will take the case of mining. Under the system at present that governs the profits of the mine-owners and the wages of the men, there is a certain ratio of profit paid to the owner and a certain ratio of wages paid to the men. For every 1s. contributed by the coalowners under this scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, 83 per cent. of it will be paid by the men in addition to their own contribution. Now take the State's contribution. The workpeople themselves constitute at least five-sixths of the State, and therefore they also pay five-sixths of the remaining contributions in one form or another, either by taxes upon food or taxes upon wages. The State—some curious kind of personality behind a green cloth—is constantly referred to as though it were something entirely outside the workers and something entirely outside the employers. As a matter of fact, the workpeople themselves are paying both the employers' contribution and their own, and five-sixths of the State contribution as well. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] That question admits my argument. I think we are entitled to protest against the
assumption that workpeople are receiving some substantial benefit at the hands of the State, as though the State were something entirely outside themselves, and were showering benefits upon them. It is really time that we got down to practical meanings. My right hon. Friend opposite will tell me if my statement is in any serious degree incorrect.
Let me give an occasion in point. Every one of the workpeople in the mines, every one of the nation's manual workers who are drawing any sufficient amount of wages, are also taxed for Income Tax now, and a heavier burden has never been known in the history of the nation. They are paying not only directly out of their wages every week an increasing portion, but they are, in fact, paying the employers' portion also. There is not the slightest doubt about that. In the case of the miners, I have given my right hon. Friend the exact percentage of 83. I really would ask hon. Members to give over indulging in such constant abstractions as references to "the State," as though the State were something outside ourselves and showering benefits from outside upon us. It is perfectly true the Labour party has always been in favour of a non-contributory basis. That is the only method by which you can gradually get to a fair system in which the incidence of taxation will be properly adjusted.

Mr. JAMESON: I shall not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]—occupy more than a moment or two in commenting upon the speech just made from the Labour Front Bench. It is irreconcilable with the position generally taken up by the Labour party. As I understand it, they advocate a non-contributory system. The thesis, as I understood it, that the right hon. Gentleman was propounding to us, was that the workmen practically paid everything anyway. If he starts with that hypothesis it would be no hardship to pay directly under a contributory system what he would pay in any case!

Mr. WALSH: On a point of Order. I said that my proposal was the only method whereby you could get a readjustment of the incidence of taxation.

Mr. JAMESON: It certainly takes away any possible idea of hardship when, according to the thesis of the right hon. Gentleman, the workman pays whatever system you are under, and accordingly it does not matter twopence whether he pays indirectly as taxation or directly under a contributory system. I should like to point out the entire fallacy in figures that the hon. Gentleman made in the defence of his extraordinary thesis. He says that of all taxation in one way or another, direct and indirect, five-sixths are paid out of the workmen's pockets. I do not in the least want to minimise the services the workman renders in taxation or in any other way. But surely it is a complete fallacy to say that the workmen contribute five-sixths of the money paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. In taxation the amount is everything. The overwhelming incidence of direct taxation and Income Tax falls upon the Income Tax payers of the country who are nearly all the people of the middle and upper classes. It is really absurd for the right hon. and Gentleman to juggle with words in this way and to maintain that the taxpayer is really equivalent to the workman. Everybody is glad to see the State relieving the miseries of the unemployed, but its proportion in contribution I do not think can be attacked upon the ground of not being generous.

Mr. CAIRNS: I agree with the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). Not long since we had a Great War. We did not begrudge spending £8,000,000,000 for destructive purposes. Surely we ought not to begrudge £50,000,000 for constructive purposes. The men whom I represent have had big reductions in wages, and we cannot afford to contribute anything to the scheme. Again, they have to wipe out the debts contracted during the lock-out. Our men are getting less money. Those who had money have spent it all. Some had a couple of hundred pounds, gathered together for old age and other eventualities. That is all spent. They are now spending 5s. per week per man to wipe out their loans, 2s. or 3s. a week for tools, 13s. for rent, and all that is offered by my right hon. Friend is what is in this Resolution. I think he has a kind heart. Every time I have met him in his office he has been sympathetic. I still want £5,000 for two pits,
in the matter in which we were three months late in applying for our money.
If hon. Members opposite have a horse they will feed him and find him a stable, or he will be no good. He will have a good harness put on him. Surely, the working man is as good as a horse? That is all we are asking you to-day to recognise. It has been said the coal trade is good. It should be best at this time of the year, but it is very dull. There are still thousands of our men idle. I was idle at this period of the year for nine months in 1887. There was then a slump in the coal trade. If any man had said to me that I would sooner have the dole than work, I would have told him he was telling lies. My class believes in working. Also we volunteered, to the extent of 400,000, to fight our enemies in the field. I know, because I did some of the recruiting. The men have never been paid. There are any number of men out of work now, and they cannot get work. They would be willing to go back to work if they had the chance. I know, because I have heard it at public meetings.
Let us talk about the men who are out of work. I may make a pun, Mr. Hope, and say I am hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this money Bill will do all he can. I believe he will, but the Cabinet is not on his side. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite willing to raise any amount, hundreds of thousands, millions, for the purpose of sending expeditions to different parts of the world. Surely they cannot begrudge this that we are asking. Five shillings for a woman—for a mother in Israel! It will not pay for the clogs to go to the pit in. Fifteen

shillings for the man, 1s. for each of the children. I would not ask any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite to try to live on it. It would be an insult to him. Our money is all gone. We believe that this should be a non-contributory, scheme, and we are sufficiently generous that we would make it universal. Some of you may come upon it some day. I am afraid of American oil, and of Persian oil, laying our mines idle. The hon. Member said we would pay it back. We always do. I believe there would be nobody more willingly paying rates and taxes than ourselves if we had the income to do it—if, say, the income of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury); we would be quite willing. I believe the heart of the right hon. Baronet is in the right place, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir G. Renwick) said he had met some of the miners.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago. I am told he said something about me and my income. I can tell him that I pay half of my income in taxation.

Mr. CAIRNS: I was just endeavouring to compliment the right hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Central Newcastle said that these five miners whom he met stated they did not want doles. Nobody wants doles if they can get work. It is work we want; it is the healthiest thing in the world.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'threepence' ["rate of threepence"] stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 50.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[6.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Coats, Sir Stuart


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Brassey, H. L. C.
Cope, Major William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Breese, Major Charles E.
Cory. Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Brown, Major D. C.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bruton, Sir James
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Barnston, Major Harry
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, David (Montgomery)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Campbell, J. G. D.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Casey, T. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Dawson, Sir Philip


Bigland, Alfred
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Dockrall, Sir Maurice


Birchall, J. Dearman
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Doyle, N. Grattan


Edge, Captain Sir William
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Ednam, Viscount
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Renwick, Sir George


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Evans, Ernest
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Richardson, Lt -Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray
Lloyd, George Butler
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lorden, John William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Seddon, J. A.


Forrest, Walter
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


France, Gerald Ashburner
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Gee, Captain Robert
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Stanton, Charles Butt


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Stevens, Marshall


Glyn, Major Ralph
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Murchison, C. K.
Sutherland, Sir William


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Neal, Arthur
Townley, Maximilian G.


Haslam, Lewis
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Walton, J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Waring, Major Walter


Hills, Major John Waller
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Parker, James
Windsor, Viscount


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pearce, Sir William
Winterton, Earl


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wise, Frederick


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hudson, R. M.
Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hurd, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pratt, John William
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Jameson, John Gordon
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.



Jesson, C.
Purchase, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES


Ammon, Charles George
Hallas, Eldred
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayward, Evan
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Spencer, George A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sutton, John Edward


Cape, Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Irving, Dan
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Alfred (Lanes-, Clitheroe)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Thomas
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenyon, Barnet
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Finney, Samuel
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gillis, William
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Grundy, T. W.
O'Connor, Thomas P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)
Mr. Cairns and Mr. Neil Maclean.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Royce, William Stapleton

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I beg to move, in paragraph (1) to leave out the word "threepence," and to insert instead thereof the word "sixpence."
The Resolution provides that the weekly contributions paid in the case of men shall be threepence, and in the case of women twopence, and I wish to make the amount sixpence in the case of men.
This proposal will give the Minister of Labour an opportunity of providing a larger sum.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sure my hon. Friend will see that it is impossible for me now to make any statement as to what would be the financial effect of this proposal, but it certainly would be very considerable because this already is a new
charge of over £5,800,000. Under these circumstances my hon. Friend will not be at all surprised when I say that I cannot accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'threepence' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 54.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[6.25 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
France, Gerald Ashburner
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Gee, Captain Robert
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilbert, James Daniel
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parker, James


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pollock, Rt.- Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Benn, Capt, Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Haslam, Lewis
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Pratt, John William


Betterton, Henry B.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Sirchall, J. Dearman
Hilder. Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Purchase, H. G.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hills, Major John Waller
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Renwick, Sir George


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hopkinson, A- (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Horne, Sir R. S. (Hillhead)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hudson, R. M.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jameson, John Gordon
Seddon, J. A.


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jesson, C.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Casey, T. W.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanton, Charles Butt


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Stevens, Marshall


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Lloyd, George Butler
Sutherland, Sir William


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lorden, John William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Townley, Maximillan G.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Wallace, J.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Windsor, Viscount


Ednam, Viscount
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Winterton, Earl


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wise, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Evans, Ernest
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Neal, Arthur



Forestier-Walker, L.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, Walter
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. McCurdy.


NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Cairns, John
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cape, Thomas
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Finney, Samuel


Gillis, William
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Lawson, John James
Sutton, John Edward


Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Myers, Thomas
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hallas, Eldred
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hayday, Arthur
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Hayward, Evan
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Waterson, A. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Wldnes)
Pearce, Sir William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Rendall, Athelstan
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Royce, William Stapleton



Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, Thomas
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. W. Smith.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has handed in four Amendments in manuscript, but I propose to call on him to move only the first, which is in paragraph (2) to delete the word "thirty" ["thirty million pounds"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sixty."

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not intend either to speak on this Amendment or to press it to a Division. It was given notice of mainly as a consequential Amendment to one I had previously moved and the object was to enable the Government, in the same money Resolution to get the additional money that would be required by them in the event of the House assenting to that Amendment.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. I have given notice of other Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: I have announced that I do not propose in my discretion as Chairman to select the Amendments to call those other Amendments.

Mr. MACLEAN: I did not understand that.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. It is too late now as I have already put the Question.

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to insurance against unemployment, it is expedient—

(1) to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the period between the seventh day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, and the end of the deficiency period, of an increased contribution towards unemployment benefit, and any other payment to be made out of the Unemployment Fund, not exceeding the amount determined by the Treasury to be approximately equivalent to the sum which would be produced by weekly contributions paid
1618
in respect of insured persons at the rate of threepence in the case of men and twopence in the case of women, boys, and girls; and
(2) to authorise the Treasury to make, for the purpose of discharging the liabilities of the unemployment fund in Great Britain under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, as amended by the said Act, advances out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, not exceeding at any time thirty million pounds, and to borrow money for such advances by the issue of such securities as the Treasury think proper, the principal of and interest on any such securities to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof."

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Mr. MACLEAN: I wish to raise a point of Order. I do not quite understand, perhaps, the procedure which should be adopted here, and I am quite willing, of course, to be guided by the ruling of the Chair. On the Committee stage I had given notice of several Amendments. One was a consequential Amendment and need not have been called on as the Amendment to which it was consequential had been defeated. The Chairman, who was conducting the business of the Committee, stated that I had handed in four Amendments, but he proposed only to take the first. That first having been consequential did not require to be taken, because of the defeat of the previous Amendment. Consequently the power of selection being limited to one Amendment, the Chairman declined to take the other Amendments. I am asking for a ruling whether I can raise the question on a subsequent occasion, and what is the course to be adopted in order to put the matter right?

Mr. SPEAKER: The proceedings in Committee are entirely under the control of the Chairman, and there is no appeal on any matter from the Chairman of Committees to Mr. Speaker. I cannot, therefore, say anything about it.

Orders of the Day — EAST INDIA LOANS [RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom any sum or sums of money, not exceeding £50,000,000, for the service of the Government of India, on the security of the Revenues of India, and to make provision for other purposes relating thereto.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope we shall have some statement from the Under-Secretary about this loan. A loan to India of £50,000,000 at the present moment requires some explanation. I am aware that it has already been explained to the Committee, but the real point we have to consider is that the Committee stage was taken late at night when there was no opportunity for many Members to be present to discuss the matter. This £50,000,000 is to be spent on goods manufactured in this country. [An HON. MEMBEB: "Not necessarily."] That is a point which I wish to have made clear. The Indian Government now place their orders where they can get goods in the cheapest market. They have always followed that practice and in so doing have differed from other Departments. I want to know if that practice is to be interfered with by the provisions of this Bill. I want to know also how far the Indian Legislature has accepted liability for this loan. We have to remember that the position in India at the present moment is somewhat difficult. If you have the vast mass of the Indian people repudiating the loan and repudiating their liability for it, we are going to have great difficulty in the years to come. How far has this been authorised by the Indian Legislature, and has there been a majority of the elected members of that Legislature in favour of it? Can we have any sort of guarantee that no payment will be made on this loan until we get from India, through the elected representatives, an undertaking to assume liability for the loan and the interest thereof? We all know there has been quite recently a considerable slump in the stocks and shares of the Indian Government—

Sir J. D. REES: There has been a rise quite recently.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But not to the extent to which they fell when the extreme "Die-hard" Members of this House suddenly discovered that there was great danger of revolution in India and that therefore every investment in India was insecure. The result of that was an immediate fall in all Indian securities. It is true that since then there has been a certain amount of recovery, but it has been nothing like what it ought to have been. The fear is still there, and I think it will be accentuated rather than diminished by this large additional loan to India, unless it is perfectly understood that the elected representatives of the people of India take responsibility for meeting the loan, and unless we are assured that we shall not have any campaign for non-co-operation as regards liabilities towards the taxpayers of this country. The whole position has been made more difficult even than the Gandhi agitation would naturally make it by the extraordinary dealings in finance of the India Office in the question of fixing the rupee at 2s., and purchasing reverse Council drafts at an enormous expense to the taxpayers of India. I do not remember for how many millions the Indian people are holding the India Office liable as representing the cost entailed upon them by the purchase of these reverse Council drafts. The House will remember that, when the value of the rupee was fixed about 18 months ago, the Secretary of State and the India Council did their best to keep the rupee at 2s. In order to do that, they kept on buying reverse Council bills in this country, but, in spite of their purchases of reverse Council bills, the rupee kept dropping below the 2s. Finally the India Council, having spent millions in this way and involved India in a liability for millions, threw up the sponge and declined any longer to attempt to keep the rupee at 2s. It was allowed to drop, and it dropped with extraordinary rapidity down to nearly the present price. I think it dropped to 2s. 4d. inside a month.

Mr. SPEAKER: Looking at this Resolution, I cannot find anything in it connected with those transactions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I admit that I was getting rather wide, but I wanted to
emphasise the point that the Indian people are holding the India Office liable for incurring very heavy debts and for imposing very heavy burdens upon them. I want to be quite certain that the Indian people are not going to try to set off, against this debt of £50,000,000, any of the loss which has been incurred through the purchase of reverse Council drafts in the attempt to keep up the exchange. The Committee which decided to keep the exchange at 2s. was composed of a certain number of Europeans and one Indian, and the Indian was against attempting to keep up the exchange. His view having proved to be right, the Indians are now, naturally, reluctant to be saddled with the responsibility for all that money. Therefore, I think it is more necessary than it otherwise would be that we should get from the Indian Legislature a specific recognition of this debt, and not only from the Indian Legislature, but from the elected members of that Legislature. Only in that way, in my opinion, will the British taxpayer be properly safeguarded against the liability for some form of partial repudiation.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend along the line he has taken, but I do think that the Noble Lord who represents the India Office should give us some definite undertaking, as I feel sure he will be able to do, that none of this money is likely to be used for covering the deficit in the Budget of India. I am in no sense of the word hostile to this proposal. On the contrary, I welcome it, and shall do all that I can to assist its passage through this House. I think that if this money is spent on irrigation and railways in India it will be a godsend to her people, and the only observation I have to offer upon its being spent at this moment is an expression of surprise at the lack of imagination on the part of the Indian Government, in that they have not asked, years before, for a large sum of money for extending railways and irrigation in India. When I think that in India, with its population of 300,000,000 or 400,000,000, the railway system is no bigger than the railway system of the Argentine, with 12,000,000, I feel that it is high time that the Indian authorities should look round to see what can be done to extend the railway and irrigation facilities of India. I listened last night to what was said by some of the Labour Members, and they
do not seem to me to realise to what an extent the extension of railways acts, I will not say as a cure for, but as a protection against, famine, in enabling grain to be taken from various parts of India where it is plentiful to other places where it is scarce. There are many other reasons why this policy should be helped forward. I know very little about Indian affairs, but, like most Members of the House, I study them, and I remember that, in particular, the Chenab Canal in the Punjab not only resulted in benefit to that district, but the irrigation works in the Punjab have added to the revenues of India. The expense for interest on loans for these canals and irrigation works has been much more than covered by the revenue receivable, while, in addition, the prosperity of the country is, of course, increased.
There is also another side to this question. Quite apart from the fact that if you develop a country it is better morally and financially for its people, it is also, in the case of India, very much better for this country too. I would remind my hon. Friends on the Labour benches, however, that the ability of British manufacturers to sell materials and machinery to India for these developments depends upon the price at which British workmen and British manufacturers can produce the goods in competition with tenderers of similar goods in other countries. We hope, of course, that British workmen and manufacturers will be able to provide those machines and implements, but it must be remembered that you cannot ask India to come and buy in the dearest market. You can only ask her to buy in the cheapest market, and we must look to it, employers and workpeople, that we produce the goods in competition so that the orders do not go outside this country. Moreover, I would draw the attention of those who, last night, rather looked askance at this demand for £50,000,000, to the fact that the greater the quantity of raw materials produced in India, and the greater the ability of India to sell for export those raw materials, the better able she is to buy cottons and other goods in Britain. All that she sells to Europe or elsewhere will provide her with credits in Europe, and she is able, with this extended production of raw materials for export to use the increased credits which she draws to buy our cotton, our machinery, and other goods.
And we need here, for home consumption, cheap and plentiful raw materials. Therefore, I think the Labour Members ought to do all they can to get this project through.
Last night the Noble Lord, replying to me as to the position of this House in relation to these loans, as they are of a trustee nature, said that, although the India Office comes here to ask for permission to issue these loans outside India this House has no responsibility for them, either as to capital or as to interest. Just now, before coming into the House, I looked at the newspapers, and I find that Indian Government Loans are still called British Funds, as they have been called as long as I can remember. Trustees and widows and orphans invest their money in India stocks, and they are looked upon, I believe, as trustee securities by the Court of Chancery. Therefore, it seems to me to be paltering with the position to say that this House his no responsibility for these loans. If that be so, why do the India Office come here? If the Indian Government only has the responsibility it should be made perfectly clear for the future that this House has no responsibility. What, then, constitutes the trustee quality of India stocks? We should be told. That necessity is increasingly great now, because the relations between this House and India have been entirely changed. Before the recent Act was passed which governs the conditions under which the Indian Government rules, the Secretary of State had a grave responsibility to this House for everything of importance that went on in India. At the present moment he has a much smaller responsibility, and, consequently, has much less control over the finances of India and over the security of Indian Government stocks into which home trustees and others put their money. Many hon. Members of this House are trustees, and they know very well that the loans of Colonial Governments, like those of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and so on, are trustee securities; but the Colonial Secretary does not come here and ask permission for those loans to be issued, although they have a greater moral reason, and a greater financial reason, for being regarded as trustea securities than India stocks and loans. The financial reason is that, although the
revenues of the Dominion or Colonial Governments are alone responsible for their loans, yet the Dominion or Colonial Governments have to fall into line with certain regulations under, I think, the Colonial Stocks Act. If we are going to continue these India stocks in the category of British funds, and available for trustees, either they should be guaranteed by this House—which I do not advocate for a moment—or this House should require all stocks of the Indian Government which are called British funds to conform with the regulations which are imposed upon the trustee stocks of the various Dominions and Colonies. It is, I think, proper at this juncture to draw attention to the point because the relations between this House and the Indian Government have been entirely changed recently.
How is this money to be raised? I would not venture to criticise the way in which this money is likely to be raised for these excellent purposes were it not for one thing. Although I am not connected with India, or with finance, or with silver, or anything of the kind, but merely look upon this matter from the point of view of a trader and a student of economics, I have taken the opportunity on various occasions last session, more particularly in connection with the Export Credit Scheme, of criticising in this House what I consider to be the unsatisfactory manner in which Indian financial problems have been handled. It was mentioned last night that Sir Michael Hicks Beach some years ago said that the finances of Britain at that time were not managed so well as those of India. About a year ago, however, the Indian authorities were so silly—that is the only word I can use—as to try to harness gold to silver by fixing the rupee at a high sterling value. They put the Manchester trade out of gear to such an extent as to throw some £20,000,000 worth of cotton bills on to the hands of bankers. That trouble, caused by this silly action of the Indian Government in tinkering with exchange, prevented cotton buyers in India from taking up their obligations to Manchester; and, when I think of that, I hesitate to believe that the financial problems of India are now handled with the skill to which we were accustomed in past years, and with which they ought to be handled at the present moment. I should like to ask in what form it is
proposed to raise this £50,000,000 from time to time, because I think that that is a point which might well be debated at this juncture. I hope, to start with that, before applying to the London market, as much as possible of India's requirements may be raised in India. I believe that the Indian people are willing—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): This does not apply to money raised in India, which is raised under a totally different arrangement.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then we have the issue narrowed, and I am much obliged to the Noble Lord for his interruption. It will all, then, be raised here.

Earl WINTERTON: Not necessarily, but it does not apply to money raised in India.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is a little wider. I will exclude from my argument any money raised in India, but, whatever money is raised or wherever it is raised, I think that we have an object lesson at the present moment in the fact that India 3½ per cent. Stock is to-day worth but 62. That is the stock of the greatest dependency among His Majesty's Dominions. On the other hand, Canada 3½ per cent. Stock to-day is worth 77. That is to say, the credit of Canada, or the methods by which the money is raised, enables Canada, for £3 10s. a year, to raise nearly £77, as against £62 in the case of India at the present quotations. There must be something wrong.

Mr. WISE: The Canada Stock is redeemable.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. SAMUEL: Quite so. The reason is that India 3½ per cent is irredeemable, whereas the Canadian 3½ per cent. is redeemable, I think, in 1950. That is a policy in borrowing which should be taken into consideration by the Indian Government. Take a small colony, say, Tasmania, with 250,000 people. Their 3½ per cent. Stock, redeemable in 1940, is worth 77. Quite recently the Indian Government brought out a 7 per cent. loan, I believe with no distant redemption date, and the consequence is that India has thus to pay a great deal more for her money than ought to be necessary. I do not like to use violent language, and I know the House does not like it, but I think it
is scandalous that a great country like India should be raising money at 7 per cent. because of the form in which the loan was issued, even though the money market was greatly depressed in spirits at the time it was issued. Some better arrangement ought to be made. In the first place, when they raised that loan at 7 per cent. if they had attached further, a 40, or even 50 or 60 year redemption date at par—two generations—they could have borrowed that money at a better price. I think, however, there is a cheaper way of raising the money than by what is called Indian Government Loans. I would suggest to the India Office and the Noble Lord that loans if raised for these specific purposes, as we are told, of railways and irrigation should be called railway debenture loans, or irrigation debenture loans or debentures, and they should hold the guarantee of the Indian Government behind them—not the guarantee of this Government but of the Indian Government. Or if railway loans they could be ordinary stock of Indian Railways with a guaranteed return of 4 per cent., 5 per cent., or 6 per cent. by the Indian Government, plus a share of the profits between the Government and the shareholders. We have just had two instances when it can be seen that that type of security is preferred by the general public and foreigners to an ordinary Government loan. The French P.L.M., the Nord, and the Midi Railways have raised money quite easily in this country. The Nord raised money at 6 per cent. issued at 90. The French Government could not have raised money by Rentes here for Government purposes at anything like that price, although these railways are indirectly obligations and are even under the control of the French Government, because the French Government guarantees any deficit of interest.
The French railways with a Government guarantee commanded a better market than a simple French Government loan. The people here, or of Holland, and the United States, who invest in that type of loan much prefer a security like a railway security plus the obligation or guarantee of a Government under whose control these railways are to a direct obligation of a State.
I therefore suggest that when the time comes for looking into the matter as to how these loans should be issued we should lay down two or three principles. We should no longer countenance the Indian Government raising loans which are irredeemable or perpetual annuities. We should suggest to the Indian Government a sinking fund and a term for repayment, and we should then do better for India. We should not allow these issues to be called merely Indian stocks at all, but debentures secured on the railways and irrigation works, plus a Government of India guarantee- I have made these suggestions for what they are worth, and I hope the India Office will do me the honour to consider them. We in this House cannot allow the manner in which Indian financial general policy or problems have hitherto been managed to pass by uncriticised, and we put in a caveat now as to the form in which loans have been issued. Lastly, will the Noble Lord tell us how he can continue to allow India stock to be put into the category of British trustee funds now that the relations of this country with India have been so materially altered?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Although I support the loan myself I should like to call attention to the way in which the middle-class view has been expressed by the last two speakers. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) suggested to the Noble Lord that in granting this loan there should be no conditions as to whether or how it should be spent. I do not think myself he can possibly be speaking for the purely trade union movement of the country in making that suggestion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am a Free Trader.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I know there are qualms of conscience among a numerous body of trade unionists, who have discovered that their support of legislative independence for India has, to a certain extent, resulted in a Protectionist policy against British goods. On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), who looks at it from a totally different point of view, apparently takes the same standpoint as my hon. and gallant Friend.
It is a surprising thing that when you get the purely middle-class trade view applied to anything, whether it comes from the Labour party, the Liberal party, or the Tory party, it is always the same. The suggestion was that whatever was done with this loan, whether it was used for the building of railways, which would necessitate the purchase of plant, or steel, or gates for irrigation, or all the works necessary for great public structures of that description, we should make no conditions whatever, that we should lend our money and leave India entirely to choose and to purchase her things in the cheapest market.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: No. I did not impose that condition of right to buy outside Britain, but I understood that the Indian people themselves had insisted on being allowed to buy in the cheapest market. I would gladly put the condition in this loan that the money should be spent here, but I have always understood that the Indian people had claimed the right to which I refer and that the Home Government conceded it.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I can understand that in ordinary circumstances this country and this Government would be entitled to give India that opportunity, but the circumstances at the present moment are such, in regard to the exchanges of the world, that you would not be giving a loan or holding India for the purpose of any assistance it would afford to the other parts of the Empire, but you would really be controlling India and loaning the money to India for the purpose of assisting Germany and Belgium, particularly Germany, because her trade, owing to the difference between sterling and the mark, is almost making it impossible for British trade to be conducted in the Indian market on any terms whatever. German trade is already ousting British trade, and I beg the Noble Lord to realise that these £50,000,000 of capital that might be used in home industry if transferred to India, taken from the industrial produce and development of our own country, may be used by India in Germany to purchase things she requires, thus causing a volume of trade between India and Germany, and producing the result that eventually we shall be loaning the money for the purpose of excluding ourselves from the British-Indian Empire altogether. I say, therefore, that while I
may be a Free Trader, I am certainly not prepared to carry it to the idiotic extent of saying that our capitalists and those who have money at home are to lend it to another part of the Empire for the purpose of destroying British trade and the chances of employment of British industry in England. Therefore, I want to say to the Noble Lord that he must not allow either of my hon. Friends, the one a Free Trader and the other a Protectionist, from the middle class point of view, to sway his mind, and he must not imagine for one moment that, though my hon. and gallant Friend speaks as the leader of the Labour party, he represents 1 per cent. of the workmen that that party is supposed to represent.

Sir F. BANBURY: I will not enter into the quarrels between different Members of the Labour party, but as my hon. Friend the Member, for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has raised some important points, I should like to reply to them. He said it was not certain whether or not the Indian loans were dependent only on the Indian Government. Let me point out to him that certainly for the last 50 years every single prospectus for an Indian loan issued by the Bank of England has borne this note:
The funds of the Indian Government are alone responsible for the capital and interest of this loan.
Therefore trustees know perfectly well, and have known all along, that the only people responsible for these particular funds are the Indian Government. That is a well-known fact.

Mr. SAMUEL: I quite agree, and I was aware of that fact, but why does the Noble Lord—is it not a juridical nicety—come down and ask for permission about Indian stock if the House has no responsibility? He had better not ask in future if this House's intervention is meaningless. We may be deceiving the public by misleading them.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think the answer to that is this. My hon. Friend alluded to the Colonial Governments. I think he forgets that India, at any rate at present, and I hope it will long continue so, is a part of this Empire and not a separate Dominion. The Colonial countries to which my hon. Friend referred are practically separate Dominions over which we have very little control. India, up to the present time, is practically just
as much a part of the British Isles as England, or as Ireland was a year ago. Therefore, the two cases are not in any kind of way parallel. Then the hon. Gentleman said that certain Rules apply to the Colonial securities which are Trustee securities. At the moment I have forgotten what they wore. They were introduced by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach after the Boer war, when there was a great demand that Colonial securities should be made Trustee securities. I forgot what they were, but I believe they were more or less, to use a vulgar phrase, eye-wash, and were only put in in order to enable Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to say that he had taken those precautions. I do not believe it would have the slightest effect whether these rules applied to the Indian Government or not. Then he says that the Nord has issued certain stocks in a particular way, and asks why do we not do the same instead of issuing Government stock. My hon. Friend forgets that in India the railways belong to the Government, and therefore this loan has the guarantee of the Indian Government and of the railways—a double security. The Nord only has the security of itself. The Indian Government has control of the Indian railways, and therefore I do not think there is very much in that. When we come to the question of the Canadian 3½ per cents. my hon. Friend must remember that their price is due to nobody wanting to sell them. You could not issue at that price a new loan. Besides there is a redemption which is a very valuable asset—23 per cent. within 30 years I think it is. You have to add that on, and there is no parallel whatever. I am not as a rule a blind supporter of the Government, but I do not see that they have anything to be ashamed of at the present moment, nor do I think, speaking generally, that the finance of the Indian Government has been wrong. The Indian Government, like everybody else, are rather short of money, and they must raise it. Whatever may have happened a short time ago when they raised money at a rather unfortunate time, whether it is owing to the knowledge of my Noble Friend (Earl Winter-ton) or to accidental circumstances it seems to me that the present time is a particularly good time to issue a loan, when trustee stocks are earning 12 per cent. and there is a considerable demand for them. I have always understood that
the time to sell is when there are buyers, and I am glad that my Noble Friend, by accident or by knowledge, has adopted this policy.

Earl WINTERTON: I can reply very shortly to the interesting points which have been made by various speakers. If the hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) had been present last night he would have heard most of his points answered when I originally proposed the Resolution, but I can give him the same answers to-night. It will be convenient and more symmetrical if I take first the technical procedure which it is necessary for the Government of India to follow before they can raise a loan, and then refer to the method of raising the particular amount named in the Resolution. The Government of India are free to borrow money in India without authority from Parliament. That has been the position ever since the Government of India Act in the fifties, and they do, of course, raise money in the way Governments raise money in India. But under the Government of India Act money can only be raised in the United Kingdom by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government of India to such an extent as is authorised by Act of Parliament. For that reason, ever since the Government of India Act was passed, the Government of India, through the Secretary of State in this House, has come to Parliament from time to time to get authority to raise money in this country for its future requirements.
I cannot give the average time that has elapsed between each of these Bills, but the last Bill of this kind which the Government of India asked for and obtained was in 1910. The amount which was then raised would have been exhausted earlier than it was, but for the fact that, owing to the War, it was not necessary to carry out what in other circumstances would have been essential capital expenditure on the railways, such as replenishment of rolling stock and improvement of the permanent way, and things of that kind which it is now hoped to carry out. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why we are asking for such a large amount. The idea underlying his speech was apparently that we were immediately
going to put on the London market a loan of £50,000,000. Of course, that is not so. So far is that from being the case, that there is, I believe, no immediate intention to issue any part of this loan. The Government of India may come to a decision to do so, but there is no immediate intention. But the Government of India's borrowing powers under the 1910 Act are nearly exhausted. There are only some £7,000,000 left, and we must have power, if necessary, to borrow this money which I hope we shall not require to borrow for some years. I could not give the actual number of years. One might put it at five, six or seven. So that there is no suggestion, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think, that we are about to put a huge loan on the English market. It is only permission to raise a loan. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he hoped, before any liability was incurred, the Assembly of India would be consulted. I do not know if he is aware that all Appropriations have to go before the Assembly of India. The money will go in the form of Appropriations before it is used in India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord is aware that Appropriations can be voted in the Legislative Assembly by means of the official vote. Is there any opportunity of getting a vote of the elected members on a question such as that?

Earl WINTERTON: This is not the occasion to raise that question, though it can be raised on the Second Reading. I cannot give any undertaking of that kind. But that is not the point the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. His suggestion was that there was going to be a hole-and-corner arrangement of which the Assembly was not to be cognisant at all. The danger which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) foresees really does not exist. I do not know that it is necessary to say anything about it because my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) has answered him. The position is in no way altered from what it has been ever since the Government of India Act.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I cannot quite agree in that respect, for the reason that this House has not as much control over
the actions of the Indian Government as it had before the recent Act was passed. It may be that conditions have not altered for the worse, but they have altered.

Earl WINTERTON: This point is a somewhat tenuous one. The question of the control of this House does not arise on this Resolution or on the Bill. This is purely a proposal to give the Indian Government permission to raise loans in this country. I hope I shall satisfy my hon. and learned Friend if I say that the conditions under which these loans are raised, as regards those who raise them, and the guarantees they give, are in no way altered by this Bill or by anything that has happened under the Government of India Act. Exactly the same proposal will be made as has been made ever since the issue. If he wishes an answer on the point he raised last night, under the Trustee Act any capital stock is issued by the Secretary of State for the Governor in Council and is charged on the revenues of India as a Trustee security. There is no change in the conditions at all. It is exactly the same. When my hon. and learned Friend asked why, that being so, it was necessary to come to Parliament at all, he showed that he was not a very close student of the conditions under which Indian loans are raised. They always have to come to Parliament for authority to raise money in this country, and they continue to have to do so. That is all that this proposal and all that the Bill asks for. I think that disposes of my hon. Friend's difficulties, except that any suggestions coming from an eminent financial authority, who has had experience—I understand he has had considerable experience in these matters—will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State. He has made certain suggestions as to the method in which the loan should be raised, which he thinks would be an improvement on the existing method.
The only other point of importance is one which is, I think, more a Second Reading point than a financial Resolution point, though I do not deny that it can be raised on the Resolution, as to whether or not the Secretary of State and myself, speaking for him in this House, can give a pledge that the money which
may be raised in the future by these loans on the British financial market will be spent in this country. The purchase of railway stores and material in this country for the Indian State-managed railways is in the hands of the High Commissioner for India, and in this matter he acts on the authority of the Government of India. There has been, as there was bound to be in a country in which an advance has been made on the path of self-government, great attention given in India, not merely in the Legislative Assembly, but in the Press and elsewhere where public opinion operates, to this question of where contracts should be carried out, and the Legislative Assembly last September passed a Resolution:
This Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council that the High Commissioner for India in London should be instructed by the Government of India to buy ordinarily the stores required for India in the cheapest market consistently with quality and delivery, and every case where this rule has not been followed should be-communicated to the Government of India with full reasons for the information of the Legislative Assembly.
The Government of India, the Secretary of State, and further, the Government of this country, are bound to give attention to a Resolution of that kind, whatever views we may hold on Free Trade or Protection. He would be a bold man, whatever party he belonged to, who said a Resolution of that kind must be absolutely ignored.

Mr. SAMUEL: Our remedy is to produce the goods more cheaply.

Earl WINTERTON: The fullest opportunity, of course, will be given to British firms, as it always has been in the past, to tender for these goods. Certainly it must be the hope of everyone that they will, in view of the state of trade and employment, be able to tender for them. I cannot give the figures at this stage, but I will on the Second Reading. There is no reason to think that a very large proportion indeed of the material will not be purchased in this country as it always has been in the past. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) used the argument that it was wrong to loan money in this country. Of course the people who will loan the money
are not the Government or the people through the Government, but the general investing public, and while the loan may be issued in England it may well be subscribed to by the investing public in France, America and elsewhere, because we believe, and we have reason for our belief, that in spite of present conditions we have sound financial security in India. The hon. and gallant Gentleman used the argument that it was wrong that people should loan money from this country if that money was not all going to be spent here.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: No, I did not mean that. I took it for granted that the British Government, from the very fact now stated by the Noble Lord, are able to give better facilities for issuing loans than has any other country in the world, and I think if any conditions can be made, consistent with fair play to India, that some at least of the money should be spent in the country that guaranteed it—for it amounts to that—they should be made.

Earl WINTERTON: I have endeavoured to answer that point. I can give no pledge on the subject, but naturally no Minister would be doing his duty if he did not express the hope that it will be possible to spend the greater part of the money here. But to suggest that it is a bad thing for the people of this country to loan money to a country which has good financial security is to suggest an absurdity. I do not pretend to be a professor of economics, but I always understood that one of the things it was most necessary to do at present was to become more of a creditor nation and less of a debtor nation. I could not agree to the proposition that it is not right to use the London financial market for a loan in a part of our own Empire without conditions. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for warning me against the danger of being swayed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I have sat opposite him for a good many years and he is my hon. and gallant Friend in more than a Parliamentary sense, but I have never experienced the slightest fear in my own heart that I should ever be swayed by his political opinions or arguments.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Earl Winterton and Sir Ernest Pollock.

EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL,

"to empower the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise money in the United Kingdom for the service of the Government of India, and for other- purposes relating thereto," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Orders of the Day — DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th March], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is rather a strong order to ask us to take the Committee stage without our having had an opportunity of putting down a single Amendment to the Bill. As far as I remember, the Bill is not a very serious Bill, but—

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): If any objection is taken I will not pursue my proposal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think we ought not to take the Bill now. It puts a larger liability on the people of this country.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FOBCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very small Bill, but it requires explanation. It deals, first of all, with the date of the qualifying period and the publication of the register. The provisions of the Act of 1918 gave three months for the preparation of the register after the qualifying period. It was found by experience that three months was insufficient, and invariably, by Order in Council, since that time four months has been allowed. That has been done after consultation with returning officers, political agents and all the authorities and those chiefly interested. The Bill provides new dates for the qualifying period and the publication of the register. The question arose whether, in order to arrive at the four months, you should ante-date the qualifying period by one month or post-date the publication of the register by one month. It was found that the municipal elections which take place on 1st November must of necessity be voted upon on the 15th October register. Therefore it was not possible, if you were, going to have the municipal elections upon the now register, to post-date the date for publishing the register. The Bill provides that the qualifying period should be ante-dated by one month, so that instead of the qualifying period ending on 15th January, it will end on 15th December, and instead of ending on 15th July it will end on 15th June.
The necessary changes in dates have been worked out in close conference with all the parties interested. They appear in Part I of the Schedule for England and Wales, in Part II for Scotland, and in Part III for Northern Ireland. They are practically the same periods as have been successfully in force for the last two years. The second provision is a provision that when you are calculating the amount of election expense which any candidate has incurred, no matter that he has paid the additional cost of postage, his postage for the purpose of calculating his election expenses and finding whether he has passed the margin
or not, is to be taken at the postal rates of 1st January, 1919. It has all along been felt that it was unfair to candidates to treat the expense of postage at the higher rates, and at the same time it was highly undesirable to bring in any legislation to increase the amount that might be spent by candidates. As long as the postal rates are above what they were on 1st January, 1919, the excess will not be taken into account. As soon as the rates are reduced once again to the 1919 limit, the Act becomes inoperative. The next provision is one to save expense. When, under the Local Government Act of 1888 it is desired to alter the boundary of any electoral division of a county, it will be possible to avoid the expense of an inquiry where an inquiry is not necessary. In certain cases, if any alteration is to be made an inquiry is obligatory and all the expense has to be incurred, but the Bill provides that where the parties are entirely at one and the Secretary of State is satisfied that that is so, the inquiry may be dispensed with and all the expense may be saved. All the provisions of the Bill have been found necessary through experience.

Mr. WALSH: The right hon. Gentleman stated that in the calculation of expenses we could revert to the postal charges of January, 1919. Is that only in cases where an attempt is made to find out whether the actual legal charges are being exceeded or is it permissible in calculating the expenses of a candidate in the ordinary way?

Mr. SHORTT: The candidate will still have to pay out of his own pocket the higher postal charges, but supposing someone were attacking his election, then the amount spent on postage would be calculated on the basis of the 1919 postal charges.

Mr. WALSH: That Concession is really for the purpose of preserving a man from having exceeded the legal limit of expenses, and it does not give him any concession upon his own personal expenses.

Mr. SHORTT: No.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that providing a loophole for getting round the original Act? Is there anything to prevent a man putting down any excess
he might have spent above the legal maximum? I do not see any advantage in the change proposed.

Mr. SHORTT: It has the advantage that it enables the candidate a use of the Post Office equal to that he had in 1919. Without this provision it would not be possible for a candidate to have such use of the Post Office as he would have had for the price in 1919. He gets the same amount of use of the Post Office without exceeding his limit.

Sir G. COLLINS: Will not the effect be something like this? If the election addresses are posted at the present rate the candidates for Parliament will have less to spend on their propaganda. In other words, it is a diversion of the money which is presently spent on elections for propaganda purposes through the Post Office. The schedule of the Bill alters the dates. Will it apply to the coming year? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there may be a General Election before many months are over. Will these changes become law before that election or after it?

Mr. SHORTT: That depends entirely upon this House and upon the date when we can get the Bill. If the House will meet me and get the Bill through quickly, we may be able to bring it into effect at once. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more than I do about the date of the General Election.

Dr. MURRAY: I think the Bill should not be passed without more careful consideration of its effect. As far as I can see, the main effect will be to make it easier for the rich man to get into the House, compared with the poor man. The poor man cannot afford to send a lot of propaganda stuff through the Post Office, but the man with unlimited means can do so. That is the object underlying the provision in the Bill. Even at present the laws against extravagant expenditure at election times are practically a dead letter. I can see certain parties driving coaches and fours and motor cars through every Clause of all these Acts. The paid agents of one of the parties in the State are like a plague of locusts, and how they get round the Corrupt Practices Act I do not know. I would not make it easier for these people by a flood of extravagance
to run candidates. The facilities for getting stuff through the post are quite sufficient now for those people who do not want to exercise through the power of money any undue influence on the electorate. The rich man has a much better chance in the race than has the poor man. The Bill has to be considered very carefully, especially the part with regard to the postal charges, and I am surprised at a Liberal Home Secretary supported by a Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury coming forward here and proposing this Bill. He should have left it to his Tory colleagues who used to be more associated with that sort of thing than the Liberal party. But evil communications corrupt good manners, and I am afraid my right hon. Friend is falling from the high estate in which he was when he was a Member of the pure and undiluted Liberal party. On these grounds, the House, even if they pass this Bill, ought to consider it even more carefully. It should be made less difficult for every class of the community to get into the House of Commons, and I am sorry—I say it more in sorrow than in anger—to see my right hon. Friend bringing forward a Bill of this class which is so Tory. In fact, the Tories of the Coalition are more Liberal than its Liberals. There are Conservative millionaires of the old type—I do not mean the bloated war type—who object to this sort of thing.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I can quite understand the sorrow and indignation of my hon. Friend, sorrow to find two of his late colleagues departing from the traditions of the party he so worthily upholds. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman bothering about finance, because I understand that my right hon. Friend is free from the embarrassments of finance. There is no charge on the Government or on the Exchequer, and I am somewhat surprised that the Geddes Committee did not report to the House that at least there was some members of the Government who ought to have some commendation. I cannot understand the real reason for bringing this Bill in now. Is it really the result of the recent by-election successes of our party? Is there any connection between them? I do not see why it should be introduced at the moment. With regard to the increased postal charges, they have not been increased during the last few months, but long before. One can only conclude that
in the Cabinet discussions they reviewed the recent by-election results. They first asked themselves if their failure was the result of the Die-hard policy, or was it the result of the absence of any policy at all, or was it due to the waning influence of my distinguished fellow countryman?
Having calculated the whole situation, they came to the conclusion that they had failed in the recent by-elections because their candidates had not been legitimately able to spend sufficient money, and then they proceeded to reason on that basis. They said: "We cannot very well go down to the House and introduce a Bill that would propose a general increase that would meet both our desires and our candidates' purses." They therefore ruled that out. They said: "We must devise some legal means, and must have the advice of the Lord Chancellor and of the Law Officers of the Crown in this case." Then they trotted out this innocent, simple Bill. Taking a constituency like Derby, with 56,000 constituents, they said: "We have no possible chance of a fair fight in Derby. We know at least the difficulties of the Labour party with finance. They have no difficulties as far as unity of purpose is concerned, or as far as policy is concerned. They do not require resignations to pull them up to scratch. They have no die-hards. In fact, the only thing the Labour party suffers from is the absence of money." Therefore, they said: "We must get over this difficulty. How can we do it by the camouflage which has characterised our legislation since our accession to power?" So they brought on this simple Bill in an empty House at a quarter to eight, when everybody thought they were going home. They said: "We will be able to develop this because we will be able to rule out candidates, when the ordinary test would be brains and ability, by saying: "We have considerably increased the expenses of the election, and we can only have rich men now." That is the sum total of this innocent little Bill. They, in short, having failed to convert the people of this country either by their consistency, their policy, or their legislation, now proceed to bribe them by the rich candidates they will have.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The only discussion so far seems to have turned on the Clause with regard to postal expenses. I should like to say a word as to the alteration of
dates, because any Member, who has had to fight an election, and has taken care with regard to the registration in his division, knows the very serious inconvenience which this Clause is to try and remedy. The Bill has this advantage also, in that in Clause 3 there is a little economy in trying to do away with these public inquiries where they are unnecessary. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not have been possible to have made this Bill a very much greater Measure of economy, and one which would have thrown even less expense on Parliamentary candidates. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) will no doubt appreciate that if it could be so arranged as to have only one register, a considerable amount would be saved. I am not quite sure whether it would be possible under the title of this Bill so to amend it, but the right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question the other day, seemed to intimate that it was a point on which the Government had not yet made up their mind. If the Government made up their minds on that point, they could possibly include it in this Bill, and it would be an economical reform which would certainly meet with very great approval, not only among the immense majority of Members of this House, but also among those who work for us in the constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware of the fact that as long ago as November, 1920, there was sent up to the then Leader of the House, at his request, an expression of opinion in favour of this Report, which was signed by a very large number of Members, more than the Leader of the House thought was necessary, including Members of every party in this House. Would the right hon. Gentleman give us some indication as to whether the Government would accept an Amendment to that effect in this Bill if it were possible to introduce it?

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I beg to support what has just been said. I see Northern Ireland has only one annual register. Why should England be given a spring register and an autumn register? Our agents are always worried with registration work. They are not free to do anything, for there is nothing but a continuous struggle preparing these registers every six months, and I ask the Home Secretary whether he will now, before it is too late, agree to bring in an Amend-
ment to this Bill to put England, Scotland and Wales on the same footing as Northern Ireland. What is the reason for having two registers when Northern Ireland has only one? I can see no reason.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. RAFFAN: I hope the House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is a Bill, the effect of which can only be to undo an action which this House took when it passed the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and when it sought within certain limits to put the wealthy candidate and the less wealthy candidate to some extent on equal terms. As I apprehend the Bill, the candidate who chooses to spend a portion of his election expenses in postage has to pay the postage at the increased rate. It does not allow the candidate two free postages instead of one, for that would indeed, to some extent, put the candidates in the same position. The candidate is called on to pay the additional postage, but the amount of excess is not reckoned against him when the question whether he has exceeded his amount comes up for consideration. A wealthy candidate who can afford it is enabled, under this Bill, to spend something like £100 additional in a one-member constituency, while in a two-member constituency such as is represented by my right hon. Friend one candidate might spend something like £200 in excess of the other. That is entirely moving away from the object of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which sought to establish more equal and more democratic conditions. It seems to me that the fair course would be that every candidate should be allowed two free postages instead of one. That would place them on equal terms, but it is an Amendment which, as far as I can see, cannot be moved to this Bill. The Bill seems to be so drafted as to exclude the possibility of Amendments which would be satisfactory to the less wealthy candidate. I suggest, if the matter is to be dealt with in a fair and reasonable way, that it should either be assumed that the cost of postage is the same now as it was prior to this increase of charges in this way, and that the Post Office is not entitled to make a higher charge on the candidate, or that free postage ought to be given to all the
candidates alike. I would be satisfied to regard these as Committee points if I can be assured that they could be raised in Committee, but it appears to me that that cannot be done—that the Committee must either accept the Bill in its most objectionable form or reject the proposal altogether. In those circumstances, the House would be well advised to reject this Measure. With regard to the point which has just been urged on my right hon Friend by previous speakers, it appears to me that that is a matter where the suggestion made might be discussed in Committee. If the view indicated to-night should prevail in Committee, then we shall be marching far back indeed to the position of things which existed before 1918. If we are to have the register only once a year, and people, because they have moved their residence, cannot qualify until 12 months have expired, then a great deal which was secured by the Act of 1918 will have been lost.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: This is a graver issue than seems at first sight. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to bring it on at this time, when few hon. Members realised that it would be brought up at all. It is an important issue, and we should have a full House so that it could be adequately discussed. It cannot be discussed under the conditions ruling to-night. We are entitled to learn from the right hon. Gentleman the reason why he has thought fit to bring in this proposal contained in Clause 2. Has anyone ever asked for it? Who has asked for it? Is it from the Conservative Whip's office? We should be able to hear from the right hon. Gentleman who it is that has prevailed upon the Government to adopt this reactionary proposal. It has been suggested to me that it might have been the cabin boy, but I am not sure who he is. The Lord Chancellor seems to know, and I think, perhaps, that as a Member of the Government, the Home Secretary would know too. What does Clause 2 propose to do? It is to increase the legal maximum which may be spent at elections, but the point is that it is not going to increase the maximum for everyone. It is only going to increase the maximum for a select few—that is to say, those people who have the money and those people who particularly go into propaganda through the
medium of the post. What kind of propaganda is it, too? All these are important questions which we ought to have threshed out on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me, is trying to steal a march on the House of Commons by taking the Bill at this time, when there is a thin House, when no one ever dreamt that it was going to be taken, and now when adequate discussion cannot be given. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it, and, at any rate, give adequate notice that it is going to be brought up.

Mr. WATERSON: The remarks of the two previous speakers justify some of the opposition put forward to this Bill. There is not the slightest doubt that the House would have been better filled had hon. Members been aware that the Bill was coming on for review. We have only to look round to see the hon. Members who are already in the House, and as one is not particularly anxious to count the House out, I think we could venture on that line if we thought it desirable—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. WATERSON: It is advisable that people should be made aware how hon. Members are having to deal with such important matters. I happen to have done a little to return to the House a man who has done something to justify our selection, and I remember the attempts made by the opposing parties to counteract the efforts we were making. I can see, under a Bill of this sort, how the rich classes of the community can utilise their wealth to defeat those candidates who may be cast on one side—no matter how sincere are their aspirations to do good—simply because they have not been able to accumulate that amount of wealth out of someone else's labour, which many other people in the country have been able to get. I cannot help but admit that there is an ulterior motive behind this postage question. I should have liked to have seen the whole of the postage returned definitely by those in authority, so that the people should know exactly what has been spent. A man in a similar position to myself would only be able to have one postage. My right hon. Friend smiles, but he knows the benefits in this Bill. I venture to say that where we are able to get only one postage in,
you will be able to get two or three postages, to the detriment of the working class representatives of this House. What would be the sort of propaganda that would be utilised in the post? There are constituencies in this country that are being flooded with literature—literature of a foul character. What would be the effect, not so much on the industrial centres, but on those constituencies that are in the counties? Take the large villages. I have the honour of representing the inhabitants of something like 94 villages. Look at the amount of value that can accrue through the post. It would be impossible for us to do the necessary postage to compete with the friends of my right hon. Friend. I am anxious that we shall have justice done to us in this direction. We do not ask for any preferential treatment. We do not want to get behind any postage rates, but we want the people to know the exact amount, fair and square, that is paid by candidates in order to be returned to this House. I was anxious to develop the argument as to the sort of propaganda that is flooding into the constituencies through the utilisation of the post—

It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS, TROLLEY VEHICLES, AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a provision in the Bill making the erection of trolley vehicle equipment on, over, under, along, or across any street or road subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900.
I am not in any way an opponent of municipal tramways as they have been run in London for the last 20 or 25 years. In fact, so far from being an opponent of municipal tramways, when a member of the London County Council I served
for a number of years on the Highways Committee, and was for a time its Vice-Chairman. Furthermore, it cannot be said that as Member for East Lewisham, I represent a reactionary borough. We in Lewisham are not opposed to tramways as such, as is proved by the fact that we have in actual operation at the present time, 8½ miles of electrical tramways, and the borough has contributed no less than £62,000 towards the cost of the necessary street widenings. The reason why we put down these instructions is because this Bill of the London County Council raises a Very important question of general principle affecting, in this instance, Lewisham mainly, but one which will also affect other borough councils if it is allowed to go through. Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900, which it is proposed to add to the Bill, authorises borough councils to veto a system of overhead traction, and one has to remember that the borough councils are the road authorities in London, and, obviously, have the best knowledge in regard to local traffic conditions.
The London County Council has made repeated efforts to get round this veto of the borough councils. In 1912 a Bill, on lines somewhat similar to the present Bill, was introduced, and was rejected by an overwhelming majority. In 1913 the same proposal, as is now put forward, was made, which would have authorised trackless trams to be run over the same road as now suggested by the county council. The proposal was exhaustively debated, and an instruction, similar to the one I have just moved, was carried by 119 votes to 40 votes in the then House of Commons. It seems a little unfortunate, when this House has on two occasions in 10 years refused to abrogate the veto which it gave to the borough councils, that a body of such importance as the London County Council should for the third time bring forward a Bill of this nature. They must know that it is bound to be opposed, and that it will lead to a considerable waste of Parliamentary time. A rather interesting point arises in the Bill itself. Clause 7 states:
Provided that the Council shall not adopt such system in any metropolitan borough until after consultation with the council of that borough.
Yet no steps whatever were taken to consult the borough council in Lewisham. The first knowledge which the Lewisham Borough Council had of this proposal, which so intimately affects the interests of the borough, was when they saw it on the agenda of the London County Council's Highways Committee, just before Christmas. Thus the County Council did not even comply with the provisions of their own Bill. The borough, of which I have the honour to represent the eastern portion, is vitally interested in this question, because two-thirds of the 7¾ miles, which it is suggested these trams should run over, is in the borough of Lewisham. I may say, in passing, that it is not a conduit system, such as more favoured parts of London have been given, but a trackless trolley tram. I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of that particular form of tram, beyond saying that I understand that it has been tried elsewhere and has been by no means an unqualified success.
As two-thirds of this suggested line is to run in the borough of Lewisham, it is a matter of some interest to see the views of the local inhabitants as far as they can be ascertained. The borough council, by a majority of 28 votes to 8, decided against the introduction of the trams. Local meetings have been held in regard to it and, I understand, have been practically unanimous against the introduction of this form of tramway. What is most significant of all, is that there was a London County Council election some four weeks ago in which this was one of the main issues. In East and West Lewisham candidates pledged to oppose to the utmost of their power this particular tramway scheme were returned, in one instance by a majority of 7,500 and in the other by a majority of 4,000. It is not unfair to say that the local inhabitants, in the proportion of three to one as regards one half of the borough, and of two to one as regards the other, are opposed to the Bill. There is a strong local feeling that it is not right of the London County Council, for the sake of economy, to try to force this system on a borough having given the conduit system to other boroughs elsewhere. It is not fair that Lewisham should be singled out for an experiment on these lines, and there are also very strong local objections to it, because of the route which is being suggested.
This is a cross-country route—and those who know South-east London will appreciate what I mean—from the Crystal Palace across to Lee Green. Traffic in these outlying parts of London tends to go towards the offices and factories nearer Central London, and the demand for traffic facilities from Catford to Norwood is very small, and it is already being served by two omnibuses, which run at intervals of six or eight minutes over the very roads on which it is suggested this very expensive system of trams should be laid down. Furthermore, in many parts of the borough property is of considerable value, and the mere fact of having four wires—two will not be sufficient—immediately outside the houses, will depreciate the better class of houses in the constituency.
I have been favoured with the Memorandum which the London County Council have issued in support of their Bill. Among other points which they attempt to make is one with regard to two of their housing estates which are being built at the present time, Bellingham and Grove Park. As they have the candour to admit, the Grove Park Estate is fully a mile from the nearest point on the tramway, and people in these days will not take the trouble of walking a mile to a tramway when these is a railway station within a hundred yards, as is the case at Grove Park. With regard to the Bellingham Estate, there are, it is true, several thousand houses now in process of being built, but the whole tendency of the inhabitants of Bellingham in the future will be to go towards town. There are ample facilities by the South Eastern Railway and the London Council tram and the omnibuses to take them up to their work in Bermondsey or Rotherhithe or the City or wherever it may be. There are no factories whatever on the Lee Green side or on the northern side which would cause a considerable number of people to want to go, not north towards their work, but east or west by this cross-country line. I submit that it is not only a question of general principle that is involved, but a question where the local authority, with all the knowledge it has of local conditions, is strongly opposed. Further, in these days when money is very hard to get, to spend £120,000 or £130,000 on a measure of this sort would, to my mind, be uneconomical from the point of view of the County Council tramways themselves. I
therefore ask the House to confirm the verdict which they have given already in 1912 and 1913, and to add this Instruction to the Bill, and I hope it may be a lesson to the London County Council not, three times in 10 years, to bring forward schemes to which this House will not agree.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.
In rising to do so, I would crave the indulgence of the House if, through inexperience, I should either say anything that I should not have said, or leave unsaid anything that I should have said. I feel, in seconding this Motion, that I am following a very good precedent which was set by my immediate predecessor, the late lamented Member for West Lewisham (Sir E. Coates), who, as I know, was loved and respected by all hon. Members of this House, as well as by all those who had the privilege of his friendship, as I had. On the 27th May, 1913, he spoke in support of a similar Motion, moved for similar reasons, objecting to the London County Council building trackless trolleys, which they then proposed to do, and I feel that I am following a very good precedent in following his example, because he always had the interests of his Division at heart, and also the interests of the country. I cannot be called unfriendly either to tramways or to any method of transport, or anything that would help to solve those very great difficulties with which we are faced to-day in dealing with the vast population in and around the City of London, or in improving the conditions of housing, which can only be done by very greatly improved means of transport. Therefore, it is not in a spirit of unfriendly criticism that I rise to support the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall). For the last 30 years I have been connected with enterprises of this kind, and I think I may be allowed, therefore, to speak with a certain amount of experience of the proposal now before the House.
In carrying out an improvement of this kind, or what is suggested to be an improvement of this kind, the House will agree that the interests of the population which is going to be served and of the boroughs which are going to be traversed by this means
of transport should be carefully ascertained, and that we should not go against the expressed wish of those who are most deeply concerned in improved methods of transport, and I suggest furthermore that no improved methods of this kind are justifiable unless they are based on a sound financial grounding. I submit that in this case neither of these two requirements has been carried out. The London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act of 1900 especially requires that whatever overhead wires are necessary in connection with tramways they shall only be erected if the consent of the local authorities interested has been obtained, and Standing Order No. 22 requires that no tramways shall be proceeded with without the approval of the local authorities concerned having first been obtained. In this London County Council Bill itself, Clause 7 states that the authorities shall be consulted—whatever that consultation may mean—before any particular system is adopted. I suggest that in the present case neither of these requirements has been fulfilled.
I have not risen to object to the Second Heading of this Bill, because it contains other Clauses which may be for the benefit of Greater London, but I do very strongly support this Motion, because I consider it is only right that the local authorities concerned should be consulted and that their agreement should be obtained before a Measure of this kind is allowed to be proceeded with, and all the more when you come to consider that out of the 7¾ miles of route proposed to be equipped in this manner, 5½ miles are in the borough of Lewisham and another portion of it is in the borough of Croydon, and that both Croydon and Lewisham are strongly against the equipment of these lines. Not only are the borough councils both of Croydon and Lewisham opposed to the equipment of these lines, but public opinion is very strongly opposed to it—public opinion which has been thoroughly well founded, not only by the many public meetings which have been held throughout the whole of the borough of Lewisham, but also in connection with the London County Council election which has just been held and which, as my hon. and gallant Friend stated, has resulted in an overwhelming majority for the four candidates, one of whose main planks was that they would object to the construction
of these trolley lines. I suggest that an expression of opinion such as this deserves the attention of this House and that this House should not allow such an opinion to go by the board or permit the County Council to construct those lines in the face of that opposition. As my hon. and gallant Friend has already stated, it cannot be suggested that the borough of Lewisham is antagonistic to tramways generally, or has been obstructive in connection with the construction of tramways which are justified by the public demand. It has something like 17 or 18 miles of single track running through the borough, and it has contributed a very large sum towards the necessary widening.
It has been suggested by the London County Council, in the memorandum which I have received, as most other hon. Members probably have done, that one of the reasons why this line should be constructed is to serve the new populations which are going to arise in connection with the development, rapidly Hearing completion, of the Bellingham Estate and Grove Park. The Bellingham Estate and Grove Park are already fairly well served by the existing tramway system of the London County Council, and they are also served by the stations of the South Eastern Railway. I know it may be objected that the South Eastern Railway does not at present give a very good service, but we are all aware, I think, of the fact that it is the intention of the South Eastern Railway Company very shortly to proceed with the electrification of the whole of its suburban system, which, I suggest, will give that service to those two great estates which they require. I would point out that the route which would be followed by this trackless tram, and which goes from Norwood, via the Crystal Palace, over hills and down dales, and finally ends at Lee, is not the shortest route, and that it is hardly to be imagined that people living in Grove Park or the other estate will go that roundabout way in order to get to their destination either in the City or in the west end of London.
As regards the system itself, I do not propose to say very much, although there is a great deal I could say about it, and a great many points on which I could criticise it, but I do not think it is necessary to do so now. Suffice it to say that this is a system which has been known,
to my knowledge, for over 20 years, which was originally developed in Germany, and which has never been very extensively adopted in any part of the world. I suggest that this House should not depart from the custom which has been established, that no means of communication involving the construction either of tracks or of overhead lines, should be permitted unless the consent of those local authorities who are mostly interested has first been obtained, and I suggest, in this particular instance, the case is overwhelming, because out of a total length of seven and a half miles, or thereabouts, five and a half are in Lewisham, for which the hon. Member for East Lewisham and I speak, and the other part is in Croydon, which also objects to the construction of these routes.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: The Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall), and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson), will, I hope, not meet with approval from this House, and I will give the reasons in very few words. Section 23 of the Act of 1900 was, I believe, passed solely to enable borough councils to decide whether they were to have the conduit system or the overhead system. It was at the time when the London County Council were electrifying the tramways. The conduit system was known to be the best, but was very expensive, and in many boroughs it was felt that if the line was to be electrified, the cheaper method had to be adopted. Borough councils claimed that if the conduit system were put up in one borough, it ought to be put up in theirs, with the result that this provision was passed, and borough councils were able to tell the London County Council that if the overhead system was going to be adopted, they had to have certain widenings and improvements costing the London County Council tramways hundreds of thousands of pounds. I am not saying it was not extremely good that these improvements should be made. In some cases it was necessary, but it was extremely expensive.
To-day, we are suffering from an entirely different condition of affairs from that which existed before the War. We have no money to spend. We have
got to put down the cheapest and most satisfactory system that can be adopted. The experts of the London County Council tell us that if this line is to be extended to the Crystal Palace and into Penge, it will be necessary to adopt the trackless trolley system. Those of us who were connected with the Highways Committee of the London County Council for some years knew it was the great desire of numbers of people living in South London to be able to go to the Crystal Palace by tramcar, but we found that the expense was too enormous; the widenings, the improvements that were necessary made it prohibitive. To-day, if the Conduit system were to be constructed on the line now projected, it would mean the expenditure of some £600,000, while on this trackless trolley system it means £148,000—a very great difference—and enables the trams to run at less money. It has been stated that this system is not likely to be satisfactory. There are, of course, different opinions. I am not an expert, and I can only say what I myself have been told. I am told that in Rotherham, where the corporation are running not only buses, but this trackless trolley system, they have found that they can run the trackless trolley system for 1.9d. a mile less than they can the petrol buses. I have also been told—and I believe I may state it without hesitation—that these cars cause less vibration, damage the roads less, there is no smell from them, there is no change of gear creating noise, and they are a much better system than the motor buses that are going on the route, and, I believe, they are much cheaper than the trams.
I do not intend to labour this subject, because I think that it is for this House to decide whether or not they ought to allow this Bill to go through without the Instruction, and enable the Committee upstairs to hear evidence on both sides, and to make up their minds there whether it is better for the County of London as a whole that the London County Council should be allowed to construct the trackless trolley line than that one of the borough councils—perhaps there are two, but one in particular—should say, "You cannot go through this borough, even to get to the Crystal Palace." Lewisham, a borough of which I am very fond, and for which I have
great respect, has never had much respect for the overhead system. I do not think it has got 200 yards of it, although some of the boroughs have got over five miles. If it be for the benefit of London as a whole, I think the House ought to exercise its authority, and allow this Bill to go upstairs to the Committee to hear the evidence on all sides, and then they can decide whether it is better to allow the Bill to go through or not. I feel that this is not the time when it is necessary to do more than put the point before the House as to whether or not they are going to let a borough, council decide that this improvement for the whole of London shall not be allowed, or whether the House itself shall decide the point.

Major GRAY: There is a strange resemblance between this Debate and that which we heard in 1913. The Instruction was then seconded by an hon. Member who was speaking for the first time, and I think that is the ease tonight. I am sure the House will desire me to congratulate the hon. Member on the manner in which he executed his first effort, by making a valuable contribution to our Debate. I hope the precedent will cease there, because the result, on that occasion, was not the result which I desire this evening. Then the Instruction was carried; to-night I hope it will be defeated. There are two questions which are separable, and which I wish the House to keep quite distinct this evening. The one is the merits or demerits of the trackless trolley system. The other is the question of Parliamentary procedure. I hope that that will be carefully noted. Parliamentary procedure is one matter, and the merits of this system are another matter. I take it that the Mover and Seconder agree.
What is their attitude in the matter? They have rather largely discussed the merits of the system, but they have very wisely avoided much reference to Parliamentary procedure. It has been the custom here when the London County Council proposed to run tramways through borough council areas to evoke the aid of the Standing Order and to prevent the Bill going to Committee at all. To-night if this Instruction is carried it will not prevent the Bill going to Committee, but it will have this very peculiar effect, that if the Committee on
consideration of the proposal agree that it is right and wise that this system should be established over this area, if on a survey of the whole, question they are of opinion that it will be to the general advantage of the public that this line should be established, then notwithstanding that decision in Committee upstairs the Lewisham Borough Council would be in a position to say: It shall not be. I will go to a higher authority than myself for that dictum. It was stated so from the Front Treasury Bench in 1913. It was pointed out by Mr. Robertson, then representing the Board of Trade, that that was the exact position, and it would enable the borough council to veto our proposal even after the Committee upstairs had consented to it because this system may not be established, if the Instruction be inserted, without the sanction of the borough council concerned.
If that attitude is to be adopted, first by one borough council and then another in the London area, this trackless trolley system will never get a fair trial in London. People in this Debate talk, as in 1913, as though there were no streets in London with wires overhead, except, perhaps, a few hundred yards here and there. As a matter of fact, there are 33 miles of London streets which have now the overhead system, and it has been established because of the opinion of practically all concerned that it was essential, if the tramway undertakings were to prove successful, that the heavy expense of the conduit system should be avoided. My hon. Friend, in moving this Instruction, drew attention to the fact that we had come here three times in 10 years. Yes, but the last occasion was nine years ago—I wish to stress that date—and there have been many changes since then. I recollect it was said then in Debate, by the then hon. Member for Lewisham, that our main justification in coming to the House was the heavier charge of the conduit system. That was true then, and it is tenfold more true to-day. I had an estimate given to me this afternoon of the cost of the conduit system over this route as against the trackless trolley system—because it must not be forgotten that you cannot run a conduit system with fixed tramlines without widening the streets in many cases. The cost of the tramlines does not stand alone. Improvements have to
be added. You could not run this eight miles on the conduit system under a less charge than £200,000 per mile. That is prohibitive. The County Council would not attempt it. This system could be established at one-tenth of the amount.
It is a question, therefore, of £200,000 or of £20,000, and the council have felt, in their keen desire to carry out their duties as economically as possible, that they are not justified in asking the House to sanction a higher figure, but that they are justified in asking the House to sanction a lower expenditure in order that they may fulfil what, in their opinion, is a great public service. No one regrets more than I do these perennial disputes between the county council and the borough councils. I am afraid they are inevitable, owing to the fact that the borough council is the road authority and the county council the traffic authority. Therefore a conflict of opinion must from time to time occur. I can only hope that nothing may be said to-night which would tend to embitter the relations between the London County Council and the borough councils, because I am quite sure it is to the advantage of London to have the closest possible cooperation between the various municipal councils. Therefore we are acting in no spirit of unfriendliness in taking the view it would not be in the interests of Lewisham to insert this instruction. We take a different view. We believe it would be in the interests, not merely of Lewisham, but the larger area of which Lewisham would form a part, to establish this line.
It is said this line would lead nowhere. As a matter of fact it is a cross-country line. It would bring a large population in very close touch with a large number of railway stations, and touch existing tramlines at three or four points. It is in the nature of a connecting link. The area over which the line would travel is one which is said to be eminently suitable for the purpose. It is a very hilly district. Everyone who knows the Crystal Palace area will recognise immediately the kind of roadway this line would traverse. I speak with all deference in the presence of the Seconder of the instruction, one, I believe, with practical knowledge of the subject, but I am advised by experts that the omnibus companies have themselves admitted that if they are to serve that road they must have more powerful
motors than they now possess. The district is one of steep gradients and is not suitable for ordinary motorbus traffic. The last time I spoke on the tramway question here I was met by the retort that fixed traffic will never endure: it will give way to flexible traffic. I largely agree; but the trackless trolley is flexible traffic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Does my hon. Friend doubt me! If so, does he know what has happened in the provinces? In many of the Northern towns it is in existence. I do not say that photographs are always absolutely reliable. But I can show a picture of a trackless trolley vehicle running up to the kerbstone to take up a passenger. Other photographs show fixed rails and trackless trolleys working in the same roadway and the trackless trolley passing the fixed traffic. I am afraid as a matter of fact the word "trackless trolley" does not convey a very definite meaning to a very large number of people who have not seen it in operation.
It can move about the roadway. It has conduit wires, it is perfectly true, but a mechanical device very simple which enables it to work on every roadway without any difficulty whatever. Those who have spoken on the Instruction have been good enough to quote from a memorandum issued by the London County Council. May I return the compliment by quoting from a statement issued by the supporters of the Instruction? There really ought not to be any difference between us after that, because, speaking as I do as Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, I am prepared to join with them on paragraph 8 of their own statement, which I will read:
The borough council are fully prepared, should the Bill be referred to a Committee, to justify their objections to its proposal on the merits, and to show if necessary that the trolley vehicles are not required, that they are highly speculative, and likely to prove a failure in any case, and that with the greater improvement of the omnibuses now in use any further transport facilities could be better provided by additional omnibuses which would not be open to the same objection.
Why not let the Committee determine whether all these things can be proved or not? [An HON. MEMBER: "It would be a waste of expense!"] May I point out that in these matters you incur the expense first and bring your veto into operation afterwards? A large part of
our time is spent year after year in discussing in a full House questions which ought to be discussed in Committee upstairs. I believe if the Committee went fully into this question, discussed it upon its merits, and came to the conclusion that it was not well for London that this system should be established, that decision would be accepted by the London County Council. Instead of that, instead of acting on the lines of their own memorandum, in which they say they are willing to accept the decision of a Committee of this House, they feel that they cannot trust us because the decision might go against them on merits, and they want to have a veto here. If the Instruction is carried to-night it is tantamount to the rejection of this part of the Bill, because the council will not proceed with it, with the result that an economical and a very useful and profitable form of transport will be excluded from the London area. This trolley system is working in Leeds, Bradford, and in York, and in the latter place it is working at 6d. per car mile cheaper than the omnibuses.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: That is not the case in London.

Major GRAY: You will not give us a chance of trying it in London. I am asking the House to give us the opportunity. If it be bad, the Committee will reject it, and if at is found to be good then the veto of one borough council ought not to stand perpetually in the way of the general public interest.

9.0 P.M.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: I rise now because I have been requested by the Wandsworth Borough Council to oppose this Bill. Lewisham and Wandsworth—the latter of course is a much more important place—do not join one another, and this fact ought to influence some of those hon. Members who are not influenced by the whips on the London County Council side or by the speeches of the distinguished representatives of Lewisham, Before I proceed to make my points I should like as an old Member to take this opportunity of expressing my humble appreciation of the maiden speech we have heard from my hon. Friend who represents West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson). Some of us who have known him for many years are fully aware that he
has had great experience in these matters and his technical advice should be at all times not only welcome, but a good guide to many hon. Members who, although possessing much ability in other directions, have not had the great technical experience which my hon. Friend has had. In supporting the opposition to this Bill I do so because the Borough Council of Wandsworth Central has asked me to do so, and this body is one which possesses a great deal of downright solid business common sense, and whatever party they may belong to they have, as far as I have come into contact with them, generally been right in the view they have taken. They not only try to serve the public faithfully and well, but I support them because I know in this case they happen to be right. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down quoted a figure of £200,000 per mile. I have some idea of the cost in these matters, and I say that £200,000 per mile would not be near it.

Major GRAY: That includes the improvements as well as the establishment of the conduit system.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Then I understand that is the estimate to cover the whole expenditure in connection with the introduction of this system, but I disagree with it, and I say that it will probably be nearer double that amount.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: That is if carried out by Wandsworth.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: This is the last kick of a dying system, it is trying to save a system which recently many of our leading experts have admitted is on its last legs, and if it had not been for the large amount of capital sunk in the tramways, I do not think they could go on with the development of this system. I think the previous speaker stated that Lewisham would require more powerful motors to run a system of omnibuses in this area, but I am told they are already running omnibuses there. I have not been on one of them myself, but I am informed by an hon. Member who represents Lewisham that omnibuses can take you there on the ordinary motor power which they use on their roads, and therefore we ought not to be influenced very much by the suggestion that they would have to put on more powerful motors. On the grounds I have mentioned and others that I could
put forward, I oppose this Bill, and I shall vote against it. I know that the members of the London County Council are very wise people, but they are not up to the standard of Central Wandsworth.
What I am against more particularly is this. The Bill can go through as it is with one exception: it must be governed by the local veto. In London we have a number of different borough councils, and, as far as the Metropolis is concerned, I venture to suggest it is a wonderfully good working system. With the exception of Poplar, where they want to spend too much money, it is a very sound system of local government. If the London County Council wants to ride the high horse, and put down any particular system let them first go into conference with the councils concerned. I shall oppose the Bill tooth and nail unless the local veto is retained. If this Bill is to go into Committee let it be on the distinct understanding, before it is passed, that the local veto shall remain, and, unless it does, I shall not only oppose it myself but shall try and influence all my friends to go into the Lobby against it.

Mr. AMMON: The fact I am now in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington opposite (Major Gray) is an indication that this is not a party matter, but that it is a question in which those who have the well-being of the in habitants of London at heart are deeply interested, irrespective of party differences. The hon. and gallant Gentleman represents the majority party on the London County Council. I am a member of the minority party, yet on this we can join together, and it is well that this House should know that the County Council was unanimous in its decision on this matter, and that even the London County Council members for Wandsworth supported it when it was passed by the London County Council. I took the trouble to-day to look up the Division lists, and I notice that all parties supported the proposal, the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) not being in his place. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before me (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) gave away the whole case. I admit that he does know something about the cost of contracts. He intimated that my hon. and gallant Friend opposite had underestimated the cost of the conduit system. That is our
case. It is because it is so tremendously expensive that the London County Council are asking this House to support it in its endeavour to supply the inhabitants of this particular district with a cheap and easy means of locomotion.
The position I ask the House to consider is this. If this Instruction be carried, the borough council will actually be in a position to veto the decision of this House. The original Act, as it passed, gave the borough councils a chance to delay or hold up or prevent the introduction of certain methods of transit into their area, but this, if carried, and if the Bill goes to the Committee, will give the borough council power to veto the decision of this House. I suggest that that is a power which no legislative assembly can afford to hand over to a comparatively small body like that. An hon. Member said that all that is being asked for here is that paragraph 8 of the petition against the Bill shall be given effect to. I hope the House will realise that we are asking that the Bill shall go to the Committee, where there will be an opportunity of discussing in all their merits, details and defects, the rival systems of transit. If then the Bill goes down, it will, at any rate have had fair and adequate consideration.
In passing, I may say Wandsworth has nothing to do with this Bill. The local bodies that are concerned are the Borough Councils of Lambeth, Camberwell and Lewisham, the County Borough of Croydon, and the Urban District Councils of Penge and Beckenham, and, with the single exception of Lewisham and in a lesser degree of Croydon, all have agreed to it. The main object of this Bill is to complete the tramway system of London, to round it off in fact, to create connections between dead ends, and to provide for the rapidly growing housing estates with the planning of which the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has had something to do, and to ensure means to convey the residents on these estates to their work. If the Bill be turned down they will be left without any adequate means of transit to the City or West End. It is true, as someone said, that an omnibus service is running, but it would be well for the House to know that this omnibus service has only been in operation since this Bill was presented to this House, I happen to
live in the district and know something about it. There was an omnibus system previously and it was taken off, but since this Bill has been drafted and presented it has again been put on. There is no certainty if this Instruction is carried out that it will continue; in fact, judging by what has gone before, it will come off again, and people living in that area will be left high and dry and without the necessary means of locomotion and transit. There is another point of view I desire to suggest. At a particular moment, when everyone is crying out for economy, surely it is the duty of this House and of any other responsible body to do all they can to promote and support the most economical means of locomotion and to put it into operation. Having regard to the existing congestion and the cry about our housing schemes, this Bill is going to help us very considerably by spreading the population. By taking them out to the new housing sites, it can help greatly in that direction. It will also find a certain amount of useful employment for workmen, without the tremendous cost entailed by the conduit system.
The Mover of the Instruction referred to what happened in 1912, and since he spoke I have taken the trouble to look the matter up. It is true that, under the instructions of the Stepney Borough Council, opposition was raised in this House in 1912 to the carrying into effect of an overhead tramway system, but some years after that same system, which they then opposed, was put into operation with the consent of the council which had formerly opposed it, because a larger experience had convinced them of the necessity for it; and, to judge by the return upon it, it has proved to be a good paying business, which supplies a great need on the part of the community. All that this does is to cause delay, as in the past, for a number of years, and to put to very great inconvenience large numbers of people for whom an adequate tramway system is an almost vital necessity. Surely at a time like this, when there are so many other difficulties, they are not going to put themselves in the false position of seeming to be moved by certain interests against the common interests of the people, and if that be so, there can be no objection to sending the Bill into
Committee, and at least having it properly examined and judged on its merits.
The Mover of the Instruction said that this had not been successful anywhere, but that is not according to fact. In no less than 14 towns and cities in this country this overhead trolley system is in operation, and is abundantly successful. Eighteen other cities are applying for powers to put it into operation, having been convinced by the experience of other cities; while at least a dozen foreign cities have this system in operation. There is yet another point which is worthy of consideration. This particular system supplies a lighter vehicle than the ordinary petrol-driven omnibus. The vehicles will be made according to the Regulations laid down by the Ministry of Transport, and they are cheaper in running, will cause less damage to property, and are more mobile. Anyone serving on the London County Council at the present time will know that one of the greatest difficulties we have to face is the congestion of traffic and the difficulty of dealing with the traffic problem in our streets and roads. This system supplies a mobile form of traction which can get in and out among the traffic. It will obviate the necessity for tremendous capital expenditure for widening and for laying down a conduit system, and it will help us to meet the needs of the people. I do ask the House to support the Council by sending this Bill to a Committee, because, after all the expense and trouble that has been incurred, it will be useless to proceed if this Instruction is carried. The House ought to be fully seised of the fact that, if this Instruction is carried, no matter what may be the decision of this House, the borough council will have power to veto it, and I am sure that that is not to be desired by any legislative assembly. I would again impress upon the House that I belong to a party on the London County Council which has only 20 members. The majority of that Council are Conservative members, and they are unanimous in sending forward this request, because, as the custodians of London, they know the crying needs of the people of London. Therefore, I submit that it is nothing less than the duty of this House to accelerate the progress of this Bill towards Committee,
in order that we may be able as soon as possible to put it into operation and give practical effect to its provisions.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: There has been a good deal of correspondence in the "Times" as to the appearance in this country of the cuckoo. It is stated that the cuckoo never appears in England before the month of April. I submit that the Measure which we have now before us is a legislative cuckoo's egg, which none of the parent birds, whether they be in West Lewisham, East Lewisham, Croydon, or Bromley, desire to have. On these grounds, the Motion moved by my hon. Friends the Members for East Lewisham and West Lewisham should receive consideration and support from this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Sir A. Shirley Benn) endeavoured to point out that this is merely a question of cost. I submit that it is not a question of cost but a question of principle, and that it is not fair to compel these districts to have something which they do not want, or upon which they have not been invited to express an opinion, or which, when invited, have stated that they certainly do not want. In my own constituency I have received a considerable volume of evidence in support of the Motion moved by my two hon. Friends. In Sydenham a petition has been signed by over 800 people objecting to the scheme. It is not only a question of cost; it is a question whether the County Council can impose its autocratic will—it is nothing more or less—on the subordinate borough councils outside the ambit of its operations. I do not believe that the system of coercion, whether applied to Borough Councils or to other parts of the Empire, is sound. Again, we have been told that the motor omnibus companies are quite prepared to supply all the transport that is demanded. That being so, why should the ratepayers, who are already overburdened, be asked to contribute further? It is not the prime cost of the track or of the rolling stock and trolleys, but every years there must inevitably be a bill for the bureaucracy which has got to be set up under this municipal scheme. This proposal should be, first of all, presented to the local authorities to see whether they want it, and, in the second place, every encouragement should be given to the promotion of private rather than municipal enterprise.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): This Debate has demonstrated the extreme inconvenience which arises in the metropolis of having two authorities, the one responsible for traffic and the other responsible for roads. One of the great difficulties which the Ministry of Transport has experienced in connection with any attempt to improve traffic conditions in London has arisen from this very fact. The position of the county council, for which I hold no brief, is an extremely difficult one. If they propose tramway extensions, they are met by a Standing Order. If they propose something which is not strictly a tramway at all, they are met by an Instruction such as the one which has now been moved. I should like, in passing, to join my tribute to the hon. Member who seconded this Motion for the very excellent, clear, and lucid way in which he made his maiden speech to the House. I suggest that really the question that is under consideration at the moment is not the relative merits of a tramway or a trackless system or an omnibus system, but that it is as to whether the House is going to limit the discretion of one of its Committees in dealing with the matter, or to put it in an even worse position, that a decision which was arrived at by the Committee and approved on Third reading might be vetoed by a borough council. I respectfully suggest that that is not something which should be encouraged. Looking at this matter from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport, anything which makes for improved transport facilities in this great metropolis is, I suggest, worthy of consideration by a Committee of this House. The councils say, through their spokesman here to-night, that a fixed tramway system through this district is impossible because of the cost. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) says that he agrees, but that the case has been under-stated and that this would cost far more than is said. So we can rule out of consideration any question of a fixed tramway system. It is said, then, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James) that private enterprise is prepared to fill this gap by omnibuses. When I turn to the other side of the House the hon. Member who is able to say upon this
matter that there is a united county council declares that private enterprise has failed, that it commenced a service, that it discontinued the service, and has recommenced it on the introduction of this Bill.
Therefore it seems to me that there is a question for consideration as to whether or not the London General Omnibus Company, who have petitioned against this Bill, is prepared to give to a Committee of this House evidence to show that they are willing and able to supply the needs of the district. If it should turn out that the London General Omnibus Company could satisfy a Committee of this House to that effect, then it seems to me that the case of the opponents of this would be very much strengthened, and there would be a good deal to be said from the point of view of avoiding the expenditure and putting the ratepayers' money at risk on this extension. Again, that seems a matter quite fit and proper for investigation by a Committee of this House. The Instruction which is moved is to bring into operation, with reference to trolley vehicles, a principle which was settled in 1900 with reference to tramways, but I suggest to the House that the cases are not parallel. The 1900 Act had not within its purview a trackless trolley system. I doubt very much whether there was one in existence in Great Britain at that time. I think I am right in saying that the first Act which authorised trackless trolleys was passed about 1910. What was it that the 1900 Act provided? Not that a borough council should have the right to veto a tramway system through a district, but that the borough council should have the right to say, when Parliament had approved of a tramway system, whether it should be operated by overhead wires or by the conduit system. That is not the alternative before the House to-night.
It is not a question of an alternative. This raises a Parliamentary question of deeper importance than that, in fact, the question which has been mentioned by one or two previous speakers, namely, that if Parliament was minded to give legislative effect to Part IV of this Bill Parliamentary action might be qualified or vetoed, not in favour of an alternative, but finally to dispose of any trolley system along this route. We hear from
another hon. Member that the passing of this Instruction would involve the abandonment by the county council of Part IV of the Bill, in other words, that this particular district would be deprived of the service which it is proposed to give it, and would be left to the possibility—which might or might not be realised—of an adequate service being provided in other ways. I suggest that it is not necessary for the House to take that step on Second reading. If Part IV of the Bill were a Bill to itself a much more proper Motion would have been that it be read three months hence, because the effect of carrying this Instruction would be to negative altogether Part IV of the Bill. Although the matter is one about which the Government would not desire to influence unduly the judgment of Members of this House I think it right to say on behalf of the Ministry which is charged with and desires to fulfil the duty of encouraging and promoting additional traffic facilities that I myself shall go into the Lobby against the Instruction.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I do not address the House to-night either as a representative of the majority or of the minority of the London County Council, or as representing any Metropolitan borough council, or as having been instructed by anybody in this matter, because none of the parties to this matter have manifested any disposition to touch me with the end of a barge-pole. I think, however, I do represent, or aspire to represent, common sense. I have been somewhat amused at the spectacle of a solid phalanx of Tory Members of this House standing up for self-determination, and that does raise a question of principle. I want to speak quite seriously on this matter. It has been the glory of the Tory party, to which I belong, that it has represented local freedom of self-government. It has been the danger of all Tory parties in the whole world that they have carried that doctrine to such an absurdly illogical conclusion that, as, for instance, in Poland before its partition, they have come to a system of liberum veto over every possible measure of improvement. In this Instruction we have come to just that point. The Metropolitan borough councils of London have had the power for 20 years to veto any tramway scheme. They now seek to extend that veto to something that is not a tramway scheme, and they therefore
attempt to induce this House to give them, against the ruling of this House, a veto as to all forms of traffic through their area. There is plently of this Sovietism already in the country. Our local government system shows plenty of instances of this Soviet system. Anyone who has had to deal with a housing scheme knows what kind of obstruction one local authority can put in the way of another, in the way of completion of any public work, and this Amendment is an attempt to extend that area.
Those who have moved and seconded the Instruction are business men. They know perfectly well that in their own businesses to put obstacles like this to the free movement of goods or the free determination of traffic lines would be absolutely fatal. But they are not prepared, for historical reasons, to recognise that that is the case with the metropolis of London, that any logical organisation of the traffic system of London is impossible so long as these vetoes exist. I am not asking the House to disregard the opinion of metropolitan borough councils in this matter. I think the House, and Committees of the House, should give the fullest weight to the opinions of such councils, but I cannot see how it is consistent with anything that has been regarded as civilised government that a particular local authority should say, "We have a right to prevent a certain proposal being considered. We have the right to prevent the House of Commons, through its Committees, going into detailed consideration of a particular proposal. We have a right to interpose an absolute veto to the consideration by a House of Commons Committee of a certain proposal. The House of Commons has no right to ask us for our reasons for opposing it. We cannot be called before a Committee of the House to state our reasons for opposing a certain proposal. All we have to do is to state that we oppose it, and then the House of Commons is precluded from considering the matter at all." That is the claim. Let there be no mistake about it. It is not a claim that the London County Council, which is universally unpopular—nothing one can ever do will make it popular—should override the opinion of the metropolitan borough councils. The question is whether the metropolitan borough councils should be absolved by this House from stating before a Committee of this
House the reason for which they oppose a certain Measure. I cannot conceive how anyone who calls himself a Conservative can identify himself with a proposition for the Balkanisation of this country.
I do not think there would be this opposition to this proposal if it were not for the idea that, to use the brilliant mixed metaphor of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir J. Norton-Griffiths) this was the dying kick of a dead constituency. I think tramways are not—even supposing it was a tramway which it is not—the most modern and the most up to date means of local traffic, but would any business man, putting himself in the position of the people of London, say that having a property which was gradually being superseded by another property, better developed, better suited to the needs of the moment, better adapted to new scientific discovery, having the two properties he would scrap the old property—not make it into a decent paying proposition but scrap it—and go on to the new method? Of course he would not. The only feasible method of bringing the traffic problem of London up to date is to develop your tramway system sufficiently to keep it as a good business property, as a fair paying proposition, and gradually let it be superseded by newer forms of locomotion. But I ask that those who speak on this subject should speak with knowledge, and I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend spoke with complete knowledge on this subject. He has given the House to understand that the tramway system of London is an absolutely non-paying proposition, which is supported out of the rates. I do not know whether he really believes that, but that was the impression that he conveyed. For one year there has been a tramways' deficiency rate. I wonder what business in this country during that same year could confidently predict that it was going to pay a dividend. The tramway system of London, I say unhesitatingly, with such small qualifications as I have as a business man, has been a good business proposition. It has never been supported out of the rates except during this one year of abnormal conditions. It has paid oft, I think, £5,000,000 or more of its debt, a record which, if expressed in terms of dividend paying, is very much better than shareholders in the traffic I combine will admit. It is a good business
property at present, and therefore, if there is any Member of the House who is influenced not by the absurd self-determination principle, but by business considerations, in opposing the Bill, they may rest perfectly content that the attacks which are made on the financial stability of the tramways are absolutely without foundation.

Mr. LORDEN: The question on this Instruction is whether the road authority is going to be master in its own house. That is the sole matter of the Instruction. The road authority has certainly some rights in this matter, and, as I understand from the Mover that they have not been consulted in any way a red herring is endeavoured to be drawn across the Debate by saying this is not a tramway. What is it? It is not an omnibus. It is fixed to its trolley and cannot get away from it. It stops if it does. Therefore, it must be a tramway. The Bill refers to "trolley vehicles to form part of the tramway undertaking"; therefore, they are part of the tramway undertaking. Omnibuses are not part of the tramway undertaking, and the London County Council has not been allowed to run omnibuses for that very reason. I strongly advocate that we should uphold the local authorities in their veto. They know the requirements of a neighbourhood. I know this neighbourhood extremely well, and I know that you will be in endless trouble if you have this trolley system there.
I doubt very much whether the county council will make a paying proposition of this line. When the omnibuses were taken off, there were not sufficient omnibuses to supply the rest of London. Many of our suburban routes were denuded of omnibuses because there were not sufficient to carry on the work in Central London. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has been dealing with this as a trackless proposition. His speech, I think, was trackless from start to finish. There is a Royal Commission sitting to decide what shall be the chief authority in London. That is an additional reason why this veto should be retained. The veto has been used often in the past and has never prevented tramways being established in places for which they were suitable. The veto may have prevented
trams in Central London, where they would be a great nuisance, for they would retard traffic rather than help it. The Royal Commission is taking the whole problem into consideration, and I do not think the House would be justified in sending the Bill forward. It has been suggested that this is an improved form of traction. In my opinion, it is not an improved form. The omnibuses of to-day can do a great deal more and carry many more passengers than those of 12 months ago, and they do less injury to the roads than was done by the omnibuses a short time ago.
I hope the House will pass this Instruction, which is a reasonable Instruction. It does not matter what kind of traction it is proposed to use. The question is whether the borough council is to be master in its own house. The London County Council has always been in the habit of coming down to a district and saying: "We want to put up a tramway for this, that, and the other, through these streets." When the county council has found it is against a veto, it has gone into consultation with the borough council. As one who has taken a great deal of interest in muncipal work, and has been a member of a borough council for over 20 years, I have found that it was to the advantage both of the county council and of the borough council when both bodies have met and agreed around a table. We are all inclined to agree to conferences in these days. I have always found it to the interest of the borough I represent to meet the London County Council in conference. The result has been satisfactory to both parties. They have not both had their way, but it has been to the interests of the community generally when a conference was held. Members of the borough councils know the requirements of their districts. I doubt very much whether members of the London County Council know those districts nearly as much.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I am very glad to be able to take part in this debate. The Noble Lord who represents Hastings says that no one should speak in this debate without knowledge. Of course, I cannot pretend to compete with him in his knowledge of the London County Council and all its works. He knows all about it, and all that sort of thing. I can say, however, that I am here representing the borough council of my own constituency.
I would like to draw the attention of my hon. Friends of the Labour party to the fact that my borough council is a Labour borough council, in which the proportion of Labour members to Municipal Reformers is about the same as the proportion of Municipal Reformers to the Labour party on the London County Council.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: It is a very good borough council, but not quite as good as Wandsworth.

Viscount CURZON: There is only one more enlightened borough council than Wandsworth, and that is Battersea. The hon. Member who spoke for the Labour party said he would support this scheme because it was expensive.

Mr. AMMON: I did not mean that.

Viscount CURZON: For greater accuracy, I took down the hon. Member's words, and that is what he said.

Mr. AMMON: I said "inexpensive."

Viscount CURZON: We shall read to-morrow what the OFFICIAL REPORT has to say about it. On the question of trolley vehicles, I was more than surprised to hear what was said by the representative of the Ministry of Transport. Whatever you may say, this scheme is going to lead to increased traffic and congestion. I regret I was not present to hear the speech of the hon. Member who represents the London County Council in this House so ably, but I gathered that he said that part of the expense debited to the trolley vehicles under this scheme would be for road improvements. Does not that imply increased congestion of traffic? If there is one thing above another with which we have to deal in London, it is congestion of traffic. If, in addition to the present system of transport along this route, you are to put a trolley vehicle system, it is really a case to be inquired into, not by the London County Council, but by the Ministry of Transport. The Ministry has been altogether too lax in administering the traffic problem of London; it has not paid nearly sufficient attention to the problem. Congestion is growing day by day by leaps and bounds, and nothing is being done by the Ministry to cope with it. They have set up an inquiry, but they have not adopted all its recommendations. Irritating delays to city workers take
place every day. Here is a route to serve a suburban area. The idea is that city dwellers will make use of the system of transport in going to their places of business. Yet the Ministry of Transport is ready to support a scheme which can only lead to increased congestion in London traffic. The scheme involves the erection of overhead wires. Is there anything to prevent the erection of central standards? A system of central standards set up in the Metropolis is against all the idea of the Ministry of Transport, and will not be supported by Sir Henry Maybury. The trolley system involves standards and wires. The wires are an out-of-date system, and have sometimes been carried away. In a heavy snowstorm you may get them carried away by the weight of snow, and people may be electrocuted. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord who represents Hastings (Lord E. Percy) represents a borough which has the most archaic system in the whole of the country. It has been superseded by overhead wires, but the people do not like them any better.

Lord E. PERCY: Does the Noble Lord suggest that in snowfalls at Hastings a large number of people have been electrocuted?

Viscount CURZON: This is a Debate to consider an extended system of municipal trading not of meteorological statistics. You are going to extend the tramway system of London by a very large expenditure on overhead wires and poles. Why do that when you have got already a far better system much more adaptable to the needs of the traffic. The omnibus when it comes up against the tramway or trolley omnibus can make rings round them. It is not limited in its route by wires or underground currents. Supposing the population shifts from along this route. What can the County Council do? The system will not serve the locality at all, and will have to be shifted or scrapped. To set up such a system at a time when you have already improved methods of transport, is wrong. Probably the motor omnibus will be vastly improved, and made lighter, swifter and doing less wear to the roads. Setting up a system like this is taking a step back. The Noble Lord said we must not oppose
progress, but I regard the motor omnibus as the symbol of progress compared with the tram. I could not understand the sequence of the argument of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Amnion). He said he was supporting it because it was expensive, and then he said it was a most economical scheme.

Mr. AMMON: I said "inexpensive."

10.0 P.M.

Viscount CURZON: He also said the borough of Croydon was partially against this scheme. Does not that show the Ministry there is a traffic objection to it? Croydon was in such a bad state of traffic congestion that the Ministry had to initiate a by-pass scheme. The motor 'bus can be adapted to the changing needs of the time, the road, or anything else. I ask the House before they vote upon the scheme to consider whether the local authority is not the best judge of a scheme which will add to the congestion. They know the local conditions, and we take a very grave responsibility if we go in face of the local authority, which is far more concerned than the County Council, which is mostly concerned with making its trams pay, though they mostly cannot. The House ought to support the motion.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I happen to be one of the few Members in this Debate who, like the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), has got no axe to grind. I do not mean that in any irrelevant sense. We learned lately to have great respect for the super-axe, and I think the axe of the hon. Members who represent boroughs is to take extreme views of those boroughs, a point of view represented on the part of some Members with some knowledge and by others with considerable ignorance. It is entirely a different principle. I ask the House not to go into the question of deciding whether railless trolleys are a decadent system, for you may be perfectly certain that the County Council, its officers and departments have had all the considerations carefully in mind. They have been thrashed out month after month. If the Noble Lord who has just spoken had been present at our Debates he would have seen the same view he has taken thrashed out and shown to be out of date. There is no clear preference between the trackless
trolley system and the motor 'bus system. That is a matter entirely for the Committee of the House of Commons. If you take the line which he has just put, that the local authority is the one who ought to determine traffic conditions in its own area, then, supposing the central boroughs south of the Thames had only one exit from London, and that happens to be through his borough, is he prepared to say that borough alone has the right to lock up traffic from the other boroughs and prevent it coming through? That is the only logical conclusion. Self-determination carried as far as he and other Members would like means that they have a perfect right to lock up all through traffic from going through it. Other Members made another little mistake when they referred to the borough councils having a right to self-determination because they are local authorities.
I have as great respect as anyone who has spoken this evening for self-determination, but hon. Members must take into account that in every square inch of London there are two super-imposed local authorities, the borough council and the London County Council. Each represents its area just as much as any other, and, whether speaking of the Noble Lord's borough of South Battersea or the two parts of Lewisham or North St. Pancras, the London County Council is the local authority equally as much as the borough council. The London County Council is local as regards London, but as regards the actual boroughs it overlaps to the extent of all boroughs. The fact is that, where you have an absolutely abnormal body like London, you have to divide your authorities and your responsibilities. For that reason it has been laid down which powers should belong to the London County Council and which, to the borough council. In this particular instance we have the supreme test of the absurdity of that division. There has been a mistake in dividing the highway authority from the traffic authority. That has given rise to confusion, but the traffic authority has every bit as much right to speak for themselves as the borough authorities. The London County Council is the traffic authority for these boroughs.
The question of self-determination is not involved. It wants a higher authority than either. I have no ulterior object, except in saying that the borough
councils cannot be the ultimate arbiter of the destinies that Parliament has committed to the higher authority, the London County Council. The House has decided that certain things cannot be even within the arbitration of the London County Council. You must come to this House for a decision. This is a case where you have the expanding needs of traffic. That is one case where it seems to be quite wrong, and against the interests of the metropolis, that you should allow any one borough to state its case finally against all the rest of the metropolis. In the case of this particular route, where you have only three borough councils concerned, two are in favour and one against. The two in favour are chiefly inhabited by the poorer population that would use the trams, and the one against is the borough that would least use the trams. Hon. Members should recognise the fact that Lewisham would use the trams much less than the poorer areas. If it were a case simply of these three councils being against it I should still say that the weight of logic is for the Committee of the House to decide, but where it is only one, I certainly think it should be left to the Committee upstairs to decide, and I hope the House will decide against the consideration.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I have no particular interest either in the Central London authorities or in any of the remoter London districts, or boroughs, or villages, or whatever they may be called. At the same time, I look at this matter from the practical point of view of the general taxpayer. I am entitled, as an ordinary country Member, to take some part in the proceedings. If we are to be of any use as a House of Commons in dealing with this, we want to hear something more than the ordinary partisan view of this or that side. The first point I should like to deal with is the question of raising money at the present time. Rumour has it that there has been considerable financial stringency in this country. We know that borrowing, in many ways, has gone on to a much larger extent than is necessary, and can any one say that it was any great part of the last country council election, for instance, that the county council should go on a further great borrowing scheme? Surely it is a time for the greatest economy, not
merely in the State, but also in the local authorities—particularly as there seems to be a very grave division of opinion in the House as to whether we are going back to a rather out-of-date system, or an entirely pre-historic system. One or two hon. Members are inclined to believe that it is entirely out of date.
May I go on from that point and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport a question regarding Clause 15—though it is only a minor point—"Saving of excise duties." Does this mean that the local authority is going to escape a certain amount of taxation which otherwise it will have to pay by means of its buses? Looking at it from a wider point of view—that of one who is very proud of London as the capital of the country—I see, as far as Clause 18 is concerned, that it gives rather wide, powers for the destruction of trees and things of that kind. I would like to know clearly if there is anything particular in this Bill which will prevent any local authority from carrying out the wholesale destruction of the trees—which, after all, in many of the suburban parts of London, add considerably to the beauty of the town—or whether there is anything further in the Bill which will really be of use to us in that particular respect. I do not think, in these days, they can cut down indiscriminately all round simply because some minor local authority says the trees are in the way of their tramways. One point I would like to emphasise very strongly is as to whether or not there is any real prospect of this system paying a dividend and helping the ratepayers in London. That is the main subject which we ought to consider, and I do not see that up to the present it has been very clearly put before us.

Mr. NAYLOR: The hon. Member for Tavistock (Lieut.-Commander Williams) asked whether the London County Council is justified in going to this amount of expenditure. As a London Member representing a densely populated division I say that any scheme promoted by the London County Council, having for its object the transfer of men, women and children from the centre to the outer parts of London, is in itself a justification of expenditure. There are two interests behind the Motion now under discussion. One interest is that of the people of
Lewisham, whose ultra respectability shudders at the thought of the London County Council tramway passing through their district. The other interest is that of the omnibus company, who, having failed in their enterprise years ago, have an idea of reinstituting the omnibus service, thereby hoping to prevent the London County Council from making the fullest possible use of its powers and to further the interests of the company, as against that of the municipality. While I am not an advocate of competition, I am opposed to any attempt at monopoly by any omnibus company. If they consider they can make a profit by running their omnibuses on that route, they certainly have no right to object to the London County Council running these trams. I would like to impress on the House that the people of London want rapid transit from the centre to the borders. The whole of London should be served with the cheapest possible form of transit that the municipalities can provide. This is what the London County Council proposes to do, and the opposition comes, as I say, from ultra respectable Lewisham, backed by ultra respectable Wandsworth, who are not prepared to allow this form of enterprise on the part of the London County Council. Again I would say to the hon. Member for Tavistock, that a body like the London County Council is not likely to engage in expenditure to this amount unless it thinks it can make the system pay. You may be quite sure of that, and

if the omnibus company think they can make it pay, the London County Council have the same right.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: They are not so likely to.

Mr. NAYLOR: One mistake the movers of this Motion have made is that they are not asking that the boroughs shall have the option of considering whether or not they would have the tramways pass through the boroughs, but each hon. Member who has spoken against the scheme has disclosed the fact that what he wants is not the option of giving fair and impartial consideration, but the opportunity to veto the proposal of the London County Council, as if the interests of London as a whole are of less consequence to them than the interests of their own particular boroughs. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject the Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is ready to come to a decision.

Question put,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a provision in the Bill making the erection of trolley vehicle equipment on, over, under, along, or across any street or road subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act, 1900.

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 72.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[10.23 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Ganzoni, Sir John
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major Ralph
Morris, Richard


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Grant, James Augustus
Murchison, C. K.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hogge, James Myles
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hudson, R. M.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Brown, Major D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Remer, J. R.


Bruton, Sir James
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Renwick, Sir George


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Kiley, James Daniel
Seddon, J. A.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lorden, John William
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lort-Williams, J.
Sugden, W. H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Thorpe, Captain John Henry
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)
Lieut.- Colonel Pownall and Sir


Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.
Wise, Frederick
Philip Dawson.


Warren, Sir Alfred H.
Worsfold, T. Cato



NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Purchase, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Barrand, A. R.
Hirst, G. H.
Rendall, Athelstan


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Rose, Frank H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Royce, William Stapleton


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kennedy, Thomas
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Lawson, John James
Spencer, George A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Swan, J. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smithwick)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edge, Captain Sir William
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Galbraith, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Gillis, William
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parker, James



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir A. Shirley Benn and Lt.-Colonel Fremantle.


Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a provision in the Bill making the erection of trolley vehicle equipment on, over, under, along, or across any street or road subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the London County Tramways (Electrical Power) Act. 1900.

Orders of the Day — STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — JARROW EXTENSION AND IMPROVE- MENT BILL (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. C. WHITE: This Bill, suddenly sprung upon us to-night, prevents a good many Members who would have liked the opportunity of speaking against it to do so, because they did not expect it would come on. This is a Measure which,
I submit, requires very grave consideration. I am not going to impute any sinister motives to the Home Secretary, except to say this: that at one time in his career, when he was imbued with those Liberal principles which those of us on this side of the House still believe in, and which he now lacks, he would have been a strong opponent of this Bill. I know no stronger than he would have, been. Let us look at what Clause 2 really does mean. It says:
In calculating the amount of the expenses of a candidate at a Parliamentary or local government election for the purposes of any enactment limiting those expenses, any expenditure on postage for printed packets within the meaning of the Post Office Acts, 1908 to 1920, shall, if the rate of postage for any such packet is higher than it was on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be reckoned as though that rate had remained the same as it was on that date.
We know perfectly well that on that date there was the penny postage. To-day we have the 2d. postage. If this Bill had provided for the use of a penny stamp instead of a twopenny—which might have been reckoned as a penny stamp—then it would not have got to a maximum at present, assigned to the candidates, and especially those who like myself are poor men. It does not do this. May I illustrate? I like to give concrete instances. I daresay I am the poorest Member of this House. I am rather proud of it, because it puts me in a class by myself.
My opponent is the eldest son of a duke who lives in a palatial mansion some miles from where I live in my cottage. He runs quite a dozen motor cars, and as I represent a constituency which consists of 400 square miles of territory and 126 parishes, he starts very much ahead of me in that respect, because I have not even a wheelbarrow. My opponent therefore, in addition to his present maximum, if this Bill passes, will be allowed to spend £130 a year more than he is allowed to do now. I cannot possibly compete with a rich candidate like that. Therefore I speak on behalf of the poor Members of the House and candidates. I hope a good many poor candidates, who would be an acquisition to the House, will become Members at the next election. Therefore we shall be penalised in our expenses because we are poor. I shall have the greatest difficulty in providing money to disseminate the truth in my constituency. My opponent, who is, naturally, a Tory of the most reactionary type, will spend his extra £130 in spreading those pernicious doctrines which I shall not have the money to counteract, because I cannot afford it. I should like to know what the Prime Minister thinks about all this. I once used to appear on his platform, but I had not found him out then, and I would rather like to know if he has one spark of those Liberal principles left in him, which he used to profess, at the present moment, because, if he has, he could not possibly support a Bill of this kind.
This is class legislation of the very worst type. When we see the present constitution of the House of Commons we know that every possible means will be used to secure their return at the next election. I am an old election and registration agent, and if I spoke from that standpoint I should say, let us have £130 more to spend. I shall have, however, to fight the next election as a poor man, and I have not got this extra money to spend. Consequently, I consider this matter not from my own standpoint only, but from the standpoint of those democrats who will fight the next election without spending more than the maximum amount because they have not the means. The rich man can spend £130 more in my constituency over and above the maximum now allowed. I know all
the difficulties of fighting elections. I know it is impossible in my own constituency to fight an election anything like effectively on the money now provided, but do not give the rich man any further advantage over the advantages which he already possesses. I think this Bill should be defeated on its Second Beading. I hope this House of Commons, undemocratic as it may be, will exercise that fairplay and justice which has characterised the House of Commons in the past before 1918. I sincerely hope that honesty and justice will once more assert itself, and that we shall reject this Bill by an overwhelming majority on its Second Reading.

Mr. HOGGE: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I am astonished that the Government should submit a Bill of this kind on the slender arguments which have been advanced by the Home Secretary. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman who on the other side of the House, or among our local government authorities, have asked for this reform.

Mr. SHORTT: It is a very small point.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman says it is a very small point, but I think I can show that it is a large point, and so far as the question of a cheap method of election is concerned, it is the thin end of the wedge, to restore if possible those conditions of popular election which prevented any constituency getting the widest choice of candidates possible. Hon. Members may think that we on this side are pleading against this Bill because we have a particular interest in it. But whether the candidate seeking the suffrages of the electors be Conservative, Labour or Liberal is of no actual concern, because if there is one thing more important than another, not only for representation in this House, but for the representation of the people on local authorities it is the widening of the choice which any constituency may have, and any penalty or any handicap, or any restriction that is put upon that choice is therefore a handicap of the type I have described. My right hon. Friend is apparently unable to answer the question as to who asked for this reform. That being so, we can only conclude that this is one of the first instalments of the great programme of social reform which the Coalition Government came into office to
carry through. I cannot conceive the Government asking the House to waste its time in considering a reform of this kind, in view of tie graver and weightier matters we are called upon to discuss from day to day. That is the first point I want to raise in this Debate. We ought to know what is the real purpose of this Bill and for whose sake it is being promoted. Before we are prepared to vote on the Bill, we are going to try to secure that information.
I want to address myself, secondly, in the short time which remains to us for this discussion, to the problem which evidently the Home Secretary is content to dismiss with a waive of the hand. I do not know if for the purpose of shortening the discussion the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to get up and say that the Government will withdraw Clause 2. If they are prepared to do that I do not suppose that we on this side will have any great objection to the other Clauses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] I am not committing hon. Members, but if the right hon. Gentleman desires he may possibly get the Second Beading of his Bill by agreeing to eliminate Clause 2. In the absence of any response to that suggestion, I must address myself to the arguments why Clause 2 should be left out. The House will observe that what it does is to give in the case of one expenditure, and one only, in the matter of election, the right to spend more money than is being spent now.
It is almost like talking shop to talk about electioneering among Members of this House, but Members of this House know that electioneering is not confined to the issue of postal packets, and it may be that many of us who are engaged in these conflicts would prefer to spend in other and different directions that extra money which is allowed for postage. For example, let us suppose that in my constituency of East Edinburgh, where they do not require any further education to reject the policy of this Government, I wished to spend this money in a different way. Let us suppose that I wanted to spend it in renting halls in my constituency, in order that, instead of posting packets of literature, I might attempt to reach the electors from the public platform. That is a very much better method of electioneering. No elector can ask a pamphlet a supple-
mentary question. No elector can heckle an election address. But he can go to a public meeting, and he can not only question or heckle, but he can debate public questions with the man who is seeking his suffrages; and the atmosphere that is created in any constituency by a series of propaganda meetings of that kind is, in my view, a much more healthy way of stimulating public opinion than the issue of printed leaflets through the post. But if the Home Secretary happened—if that be conceivable—to be my opponent in East Edinburgh, or I happened to be his opponent in West Newcastle, and if he cared to choose the method of this Bill, and spend the money in postage, he could do it, whereas I am not to be given that choice. After all, although he is a Member of the Coalition Government, he perhaps retains some of his old radical principles, and I am sure he will agree that every candidate for Parliament or for any local authority ought to have an equal chance, and that it cannot be fair to put any handicap in the way of that candidate's reaching his desire. Again, why should not a candidate be entitled to the same reduction in the cost of printing to which he is entitled in the cost of postage? Why should the Government say:
Any expenditure on postage for printed packets within the meaning of the Post Office Acts, 1908 to 1920, shall, if the rate of postage for any such pocket is higher than it was on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nineteen, be reckoned as though that rate had remained the same as it was on that date.
The Government are going to subsidise the wealthy candidate by allowing him the cheap postage rates of 1919. On the same basis and on the same lines, why, in printing our election addresses, in advertising in our newspapers, in posting on our walls, in conducting our meetings, and all the paraphernalia of an election, should not the Government subsidise all candidates and give them all that at its cost on the 1st January, 1019? We might even push it to the ridiculous and say that, while we are in our constituencies incurring personal expenditure, we were entitled to our expenses in our hotels or inns or houses during the election at their cost on that particular date. That, obviously, is the argument that reduces this Bill to an absurdity if my right hon. Friend persists in carrying Clause 2, and that is the meticulous argument against Clause 2.
On the wider argument there is this to be said. When the last reforms were made the biggest reform of all was the omission from a candidate's expenses of the Returning Officer's expenses, and we were by that method enabled to put a candidate—even though he did not agree with our particular party colour and was an independent candidate—into the field, and at the minimum cost to himself or those whom he represented to test the feeling of the constituency. That is an enormous thing. How frequently in this House, when a Member retires or a Member dies, does a large constituency have to go by default, as there is no political party that can afford to fight that particular seat? In the old days it could never be contested, and from year to year and Parliament to Parliament you had great areas in this country which were never tested and never had any political propaganda done in them, because nobody was really able to put up the money necessary to fight the wealthier candidate. When you do away with Returning Officers' expenses any man, by hiring halls or speaking at street corners, can test public opinion. There are so many important questions that arise from time to time that it is most undesirable that any further cost should be imposed. On the broader argument, then, that this will destroy something to which democracy has gained access for the testing of public opinion on every available occasion, I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill unless the Government are prepared to say, here and now, that they are ready to omit Clause 2.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I also wish to add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Hogge) that Clause 2 should be struck out of this Bill. Everything that adds to the expense of an election adds to the difficulty of the poor man being returned to this House. I could have understood quite easily if, owing to the opinion of the Government, the Home Secretary, and the Department that has been considering this business, it had been decided that the expense of postage was such that it hampered the candidate considerably because of the amount he had to spend on an election and it had been decided to make it a public charge. I could have understood that the public Exchequer should have
met the extra, so that the candidate was not called on to pay more in proportion than he paid when circumstances were more equal than they are to-day. But that you should put it in the power of the wealthy man to have a better opportunity than he had previously to be returned to this House because of the amount of money he has at his disposal to spend on an election, is not doing justice to the democratic character of this House, and for that reason most certainly I would add my appeal to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he was delivering his speech merely for opposition to the Measure. The other matters that I see in the Clauses of the Bill really require to be enacted, in spite of the suggestions made a moment ago that even if Clause 2 were struck out our friends would continue to oppose it. I have looked through the Bill carefully and I am of opinion that there are matters connected with election law which require to be remedied and the Bill if passed into law might confer advantages, but I am utterly opposed to this Clause. I remember quite well when we used to discuss, at street corners and elsewhere, a reduction of election expenses to not more than £500, and I am certainly of opinion that we ought to aim at curtailing the possibility of lavish expenditure at elections rather than increasing it. It really does not give a poor man a ghost of a chance. If you are going continually to increase the amount which can be spent on elections, you may be sure the man who has plenty of money at his disposal will go to the extreme limit, and the poor man is placed at considerable disadvantage, and this House never can be really democratic until both at an election and in attendance in this House the poorest citizen in the State, provided he has ability, has an equal opportunity of a seat in it.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I also take exception to the second Clause of the Bill. It has as its title "The Representation of the People Act." Judging from the Second Clause, it will cease to be a Representation of the People Measure, and will mean practically the buying of some seats. It has been said by various speakers that a rich man, owing to the operation of Clause 2, will have an undue advantage over the poor man who may be contesting the same constituency. That from the very read-
ing of the Clause itself is obvious; and I am surprised that the Government should try to obtain a Second Reading of the Bill to-day, with such a short time allotted for the discussion of such an important Measure. It is reversing in every possible direction the operation of the Representation of the People Act, which has now become the law of the country, and upon which the elections were fought in 1919. It takes away a great deal of the democratic rights that that Act gives to the poor man by the operation of this part of Clause 2 which gives to a wealthy candidate, who is able to send several times the printed matter by post, an undue advantage over the like of the Members who sit on the Labour benches and poorer candidates in other constituencies, and in consequence entirely vitiates the right of democratic representation of the people. I have been questioned because I have made the suggestion that we should also oppose Clause 3. Even if the Government withdrew Clause 2, Clause 3 remains as a Clause which we cannot support.

It being Eleven of the Clock, Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — IRISH GOVERNMENTS' AGREEMENT.

MR. CHURCHILL'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I think the House, before it adjourns to-night, will wish the representatives of the Government who are present to impart to them the terms of the Agreement which has been reached as the result of the discussions extending over yesterday and to-day between the Governments of Northern and Southern Ireland. I will read the Agreement.

IRELAND.

Heads of Agreement between the Provisional Government and the Government of Northern Ireland.

1. PEACE is to-day declared.
2. From to-day the two Governments undertake to co-operate in every way in their power with a view to the restoration of peaceful conditions in the unsettled areas.
3. The Police in Belfast to be organised in general accordance with the following conditions:

(1.) Special Police in mixed districts to be composed half of Catholics and half of Protestants; special arrangements to be made where Catholics or Protestants are living in other districts. All specials not required for this Force to be withdrawn to their homes and their arms handed in.
(2.) An Advisory Committee composed of Catholics to be set up to assist in the selection of Catholic recruits for the Special Police.
(3.) All Police on duty, except the usual Secret Service, to be in uniform and officially numbered.
(4.) All arms and ammunition issued to police to be deposited in barracks, in charge of a military or other competent officer, when the policeman is not on duty, and an official record to be kept of all arms issued and of all ammunition issued and used.
(5.) Any search for arms to be carried out by police forces, composed half of Catholics and half of Protestants, the military rendering any necessary assistance.
4. A Court to be constituted for the trial without jury of persons charged with serious crime, the Court to consist of the Lord Chief Justice and one of the Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland. Any person committed for trial for a serious crime, to be tried by that Court—

(a.) If he so requests; or
(b.) If the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland so directs.

Serious crime should be taken to mean any offence punishable with
death, penal servitude or imprisonment for a term exceeding six months.

The Government of Northern Ireland will take steps for passing the legislation necessary to give effect to this Article.

5. A Committee to be set up in Belfast, of equal numbers, Catholic and Protestant, with an independent Chairman, preferably Catholic and Protestant alternating in successive weeks, to hear and investigate complaints as to intimidation, outrages, &c. Such Committee to have direct access to the Heads of the Government.

The local Press to be approached with a view to inserting only such reports of disturbances, &c, as shall have been considered and communicated by this committee.

6. I.R.A. activity to cease in the six counties, and thereupon the method of organising the Special Police in the six counties outside Belfast shall proceed as speedily as possible upon lines similar to those agreed to for Belfast.

7. During the month immediately following the passing into law of the Bill confirming the Constitution of the Free State (being the month within which the Northern Parliament is to exercise its option) and before any address in accordance with article 12 of the Treaty is presented, there shall be a further meeting between the signatories to this agreement with a view to ascertaining:

(a.) Whether means can be devised to secure the unity of Ireland;
(b.) Failing this, whether agreement can be arrived at on the boundary question otherwise than by recourse to the Boundary Commission outlined in article 12 of the Treaty.

8. The return to their homes of persons who have been expelled to be secured by the respective Governments; the advice of the Committee mentioned in article 5 to be sought in cases of difficulty.

9. In view of the special conditions consequent on the political situation in Belfast and neighbourhood, the British Government will submit to Parliament
a Vote not exceeding £500,000 for the Ministry of Labour of Northern Ireland to be expended exclusively on relief work, one-third for the benefit of Roman Catholics and two-thirds for the benefit of Protestants.

The Northern signatories agree to use every effort to secure the restoration of the expelled workers, and wherever this proves impracticable at the moment owing to trade depression they will be afforded employment on the relief works referred to in this Article so far as the one-third limit will allow; Protestant ex-service men to be given first preference in respect of the two-thirds of the said fund.

10. The two Governments shall in cases agreed upon between the signatories arrange for the release of political prisoners in prison for offences before the date hereof. No offences committed after the 31st March, 1922, shall be open to consideration.

11. The two Governments unite in appealing to all concerned to refrain from inflammatory speeches and to exercise restraint in the interests of peace.

Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government:

MICHAL O COILEAIN.

E. S. O DTTGAIN.

CAOIMHGHIN O'H UIGIN.

ART O GRIOBHTHA.

Arthur Griffith,

Chairman of the Irish Delegation of Plenipotentiaries, 1921.

Signed on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland:

JAMES CRAIG.

LONDONDERRY.

E. M. ARCHDALE.

Countersigned on behalf of the British Government:

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.

L. WORTHINGTON EVANS.

HAMAE GREENWOOD.

PEEL.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I am quite certain that not only the House, but the whole country, and indeed, by the time the news reaches them, the whole British Commonwealth, will have heard with very
great relief the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us. It is not an occasion for anything approaching discussion, but there are two points which the right hon. Gentleman read out to us which I regard, if I may say so, with great hope, first, that members of two belligerents in unhappy conflict in Ireland have united together in a common effort to maintain law and order, and the other point realises, indeed, the greatest aspiration of all—that some effort should be made for the unity of Ireland. While I very seldom speak for the House as a whole, I am sure that on this occasion I can say this, that nothing will be lacking in any Member of any party in this House to do anything that we can to maintain this happy atmosphere, and we all, I am certain, join in the fervent prayer that this may be the first step to, and a real foundation of, a lasting peace.

Mr. DEVLIN: I trust the House will forgive me if I also offer my congratulations on the most cheering news which the right hon. Gentleman has conveyed to the House. No one rejoices more profoundly than I at the prospect of an immediate and, I trust, a permanent peace in Ireland. I can only say that if the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read is the foundation of that future peace—and I trust, future unity of Ireland—then the best work that has ever been done for Ireland, for the
Empire, and for the world, was performed to-day. May I be permitted to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all his colleagues, for the inspired idea which moved him to call this conference together, and I trust, as I pay very free compliments to hon. Members on that bench, that I may also be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the superb tact and ability with which he has conducted all those Irish matters since he has been entrusted with this task. For my part, having laboured now for over 20 years to try to bring my fellow countrymen in Ulster together—the one great object of my life being to see these causes of conflict disappear, allowing us to approach the consideration of Irish affairs, especially in Ulster and Belfast, from those normal points of view which guide politics here and elsewhere—I trust that we will now be enabled to apply ourselves to the higher and nobler task of fighting for the elevation of the poor, for the promotion of all great human causes, for the creation of better conditions for our people, and for the great purpose of joining together the democracies of these islands in all that can make for the grandeur, and power, and enduring strength of the Empire.

Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.